Watch Philip Defranco discuss the controversy around Jordan Peele’s comments:
Today Jordan Peele found himself in the sunken place of the culture war when he advocated for white genocide. Or so you would think given the reaction of some people online. But such is the state of our polarized, outrage addicted culture. The quote that the clickbait journalism ran with to illicit the backlash was, “I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie.” And with that the culture war exploded in outrage as all the SJWs, Nazis, shitlords and Otherkin converged on their local parks and engaged in a Ron Burgundy style brawl that was so intense that I’m sure we’ll see some popular figures in the new Smash Bros DLC.
Ok, it wasn’t THAT bad. And in fact Jordan Peele went on to say:
“Not that I don’t like white dudes but I’ve seen that movie. It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is the feeling like we are in this time – a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false. The way I look at it, I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, ‘I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.’ And they say yes.”
But in the cesspool that is the twitterverse we, of course, saw a lot of people take the bait. Of course the point of this tabloid was to incite outrage and draw attention and benefit from all the clicks and views propped up by everyone on all sides road raging about it online. Because like the ex girlfriend who stalked me, negative attention is still attention. But we all apparently have yet to truly learn that. And one such poor bastard happened to be someone whose content I enjoy, Jeremy over at TheQuartering (on twitter, youtube, minds, facebook). Jeremy tweeted out the article with the comment, “Imagine saying…’I don’t see myself hiring white dudes’ and being applauded. These times…”
Watch TheQuartering explain the situation around his tweet:
This picked up attention from others online and made its way onto the Philip Defranco show who reported on the controversy. Now I’m just not going to touch on the ouroboros nature of these incidents where journalists produce clickbait, then content creators expose clickbait, therefore effectively taking the bait. Then indie dude, like myself, with nothing better to do shares said click baited click bait to all his friends which only produces further clickbait. BUT there’s a real point to be made through all this noise. Jeremy isn’t wrong. But he’s also not right. And most of us are usually in this boat.
To simply dismiss legitimate claims of racism is only making the situation worse. There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism’ or the ‘false equivalency’ of comparing blacks and whites to black and white situations. But the real question here is was there any real racism that took place here? On the surface it sure looks that way. And let’s not kid ourselves, you replace the word “white” with the word “black” or “latino” or “asian” or whatever and of course it would be a morally wrong thing to say. So if the goal here is equality then we should be striving for nothing less. But is this a racist incident?
I’m about to sound like I work for Patreon but I really think these things need to be observed through a case-by-case basis. And in order to understand the words we really must understand the person. Look at what happened to Kevin Hart. He was fired from hosting the Oscars after online outrage over a tweet from 2011 which read, “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ‘stop that’s gay.'”
Watch Ellen sit down with Kevin Hart to help re-hire him as Oscars Host:
Despite the fact this is something Kevin Hart has already addressed in the past, according to him, this didn’t stop the Oscars from dropping him faster than they hired him. Like Hart said himself in a snapchat reaction to the news, do people actually think that someone can’t grow and learn in 8 years? Do we all just start to view all of history through the critical lense of today’s cultural context? And where exactly are these flawless people? These pure, innocent people, who’ve never made a mistake, that these trolls seem to believe exist. Guess what? They don’t exist. We’re all horrible, flawed monsters navigating our way through the fog of life, just coasting along to whatever solid ground we can find.
Kevin Hart watched a life-long dream crumble beneath him. Even after Ellen sat him down and attempted to get him to fight for his job, the damage had already been done. Not the defamation against him but the damage to his dream. The fun, glamour and social relevance that this ceremony represented to him throughout his life, which he put on a pedestal, all came crashing down with their weak willed, bad faith, reactionary abandon of principal at the first sight of risk.
Oh, and the online trolls then came for Ellen, attempting to reduce probably one of the biggest LGBT icons to “just another white woman”. I’m sorry, Ellen is one of the kindest, sweetest, most positive people we have out there so to try and diminish the reputation and presence she’s earned, only reveals your own ill intentions. Ellen didn’t emerge in a time when your ethnicity and sexual orientation were celebrated in society like they are today. She was the rose that bloomed from the crack in the hard concrete when you lost you’re sitcom for your sexual identity.
But to be real, that’s really all she is to the intersectional community. Just another white woman. How dare she not stay in her lane. These social justice warriors are sadists. Sadists who are addicted to the dopamine hit that a good lynching provides. To me, they’re just as dangerous as these white supremacists advocating for a civil war. So don’t kid yourself, there’s no difference between antifa and those antifa target.
Watch SJW mob surround Tucker Carlson’s home where his wife hid in their closet:
The only thing more pathetic than the boy who cried wolf is the fool who listened to the false claim. And after everything the Oscars represented to Kevin, for them to sell him out so quick to appease a minority, faux-outrage mob of trolls reveals that, to them, he’s really nothing more than their dancing monkey to use for ratings. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it. Good on Hart for not giving THEM a second chance. They don’t deserve him. And so ever further the Oscars spiral into irrelevancy. Because they bent the knee to the social justice mob who aims to run black men out of town in the name of progress. When you don’t stand for anything you’ll fall for everything.
My point about Jordan Peele is just that, context. I wouldn’t describe myself as a Jordan Peele “fan” but I’ve always enjoyed his work. And When I watched “Get Out” I didn’t see the persecution of white people despite the fact literally every white actor in the film was a villain. I empathized with the main lead, believe it or not, despite the fact our skin looks different. Go figure!
But I know I was able to do so because the story and the actors enabled that relationship. When I was presented with the “black boyfriend” narrative it didn’t come across as political propaganda. It felt like cultural relevance. Even if it was a little political. But I was happy to support it given that if this was political, this is how you do it right. Because the concept, the acting, the writing was good. It was something the entire audience could unite under.
Watch Jordan Peele discuss how white audiences reacted to “Get Out”:
The issues he’s talking about are real issues. It’s always been cringey when studios feel the need to cast white actors in place of other ethnic roles like when they cast Christian Bale as an Egyptian. I think there is a real conversation to be had around visible representation in movies and shows. BUT THAT BEING SAID. So much of our content has been used as social justice propaganda that I completely understand people who may be suffering from political fatigue and just groan at every mention of “empowerment” and “dominance position” this versus “power group” that, yadda, yadda, yadda.
There just seems to be this odd idea that the only way to empower someone is to tear someone else down. Like the only way for a white person to be an “ally” is to just SHUT THE FUCK UP. Wow, great. For me, to be honest, I take more offense to the part where he says, “I’ve seen that movie before”. I totally understand push back against that. What is he even saying? Everything Hitchcock made, everything Kubrick made, star wars, lord of the rings, star trek, etc etc etc are all just the same movie because they were made and starred by whites? I have a feeling that Jordan, himself, was really caught off guard with this interview and was baited into saying some stupid crap. Otherwise he needs to invest in a publicist before he opens his mouth.
Be honest with yourself, when you go to a movie do you think to yourself, “I can’t wait to see all the statistically accurate visible representation according to the demographics of the region where the movie takes place,” or do you think to yourself “this movie looks interesting, I want to see what happens,”?
Racism is racism. Period. Whether you’re white or black or whatever. Period. And like Jordan said himself, the reality is he can now turn to a studio and say “I wanna make a movie about black people” and receive funding. That’s progress. So to keep moving forward let’s focus on how to unite audiences, not divide them. The less risk to a studio the less doubt they can have to fund these sorts of projects. And take risks on new up and comers like Jordan Peele.
I just don’t understand why Peele felt he had to even say this at all. He would have meant the same thing by just saying, “I hire who I feel best fits into my story,” and just left it at that. I feel like he was probably baited into weighing in about identity politics and just fell for the bait. Probably an example of someone who surrounds themselves with yes people and gets so caught up with confirmation bias they are lulled into a false sense of security by the wrong people.
But that being said, Jordan Peele is now a Hollywood elite, regardless his roots and so if what we want is true equality then he needs to take the public reaction for whatever it is and deal with it. This is the nature of the Hollywood beast. And he’s a big boy, he can take responsibility for the things he says. I’m sure he’s not losing sleep over what guys like me think. Nor am I losing sleep over shit people like him say. Everything else from everyone else is just playing the outrage game. On both ends of the spectrum. I didn’t really care for “US” but I’m still looking forward to his next one.
It’s easy to see politics everywhere you look these days. But I do think these situations must be evaluated as a case by case basis otherwise we just paint with broad brushes and end up dehumanizing people in the same way as the SJW. We can’t rob people of their individual sovereignty based on surface level evidence that we use to act as judge, jury and executioner. We’re all entitled to our opinions but we also all need to be mindful of when dialogue devolves into rhetoric. Because we’re ALL guilty of that.
Sometimes if we forget to take proper care of ourselves and reconnect with the outside world then our oversaturated minds can easily regurgitate these narratives as we project this rhetoric overtop of otherwise innocent situations. Not that these comments are innocent but I do not believe Jordan Peele is guilty of any wrongdoing.
Dear outrage mobs, this is how you look:
“I’ll say this: The scariest monster in the world is human beings and what we are capable of, especially when we get together.”
We’ve been hearing a lot about the Mueller investigation in the news lately. Devastating a lot of democrats to find out that there will be no further indictments into the Russian collusion probe. I can’t help but sit back, looking at the state of affairs here in Canadian Politics in juxtaposition to our neighbours south of the border screeching in satisfaction and think to myself, “at least you’re lucky enough to have the checks and balances in place to even have the investigation take place at all.”
Here in Canada, apparently when a majority government doesn’t want the public to know about something they can just use and abuse their majority power to shut down all attempts to bring about an investigation. And it begs the question, does our majority government have too much power? What exactly is going on with the SNC-Lavalin situation? Is it a scandal? Is it out right corruption? Bribery? A violation of ethics? And apparently according to most media, why should any of us really even care? Well, let’s review what’s been going on and attempt to ask some of those tough questions.
But as questions mounted and most mainstream outlets and opposition the Justice committee finally granted Wilson-Raybould the opportunity to sit before the Justice Committee and testify. Wilson-Raybould would not share her story with the media because she was concerned that due to solicitor-client privilege she could be disbarred if she were to disclose any details regarding the situation around the SNC-Lavalin deferred prosecution agreement. Given that her role at the time was as Attorney General of Canada.
Watch what is a deferred prosecution agreement and what does it mean?:
Also known as “MOJAG” the Attorney General litigates on behalf of the Crown and serves as the chief legal advisor to the Government of Canada. Most prosecution functions of the Attorney General have been assigned to the Public Prosection Service of Canada. The Salary of the Attorney General is $255,300 per year (2017).
Finally on Feb 27 Jody Wilson-Raybould delivered a 37 minute testimony and then answered questions for about 2 hours afterwards. Wilson-Raybould tells the justice committee she came under “consistent and sustained” pressure — including veiled threats — from the PMO, the Privy Council Office and Morneau’s office to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
What were the key details of her testimony?
Wilson-Raybould was asked by the PMO to overrule the prosecution decision not to grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin because of Canadian jobs and that there was an election coming up. Wilson-Raybould turned down the requests citing political reasons as an inappropriate reason to overrule the prosecution.
The “consistent and sustained pressure” she received from the PMO to overrule the the prosecutor’s decision went on over the course of 4 months by multiple MPs (and the PCO Michael Wernick who is supposed to be non-partisan)
Trudeau’s principal secretary, best friend, Gerald Butts (whom Trudeau has asserted speaks for him) told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at one point that there “is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.” Gerald Butts then resigned on Feb 18 after the Globe and Mail article.
Then Trudeau’s Chief of staff Katie Telford tells Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff, “we don’t want to debate legalities any more.“
During questions Wilson-Raybould was asked if she thought the pressure was illegal and she said, “no”. (important to note that the only thing she claimed was not illegal was whether or not SHE THOUGHT the PRESSURE PUT ON HER was ILLEGAL and that’s very important to remember given how frequently Liberals are now citing this question as a total exoneration of their conduct and justification to shut down the SNC-Lavalin probe.)
Long story short, After Wilson-Raybould determined that she would not grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA there was a cabinet shuffle where she was removed as attorney general and appointed the position of Minister of Veterans Affairs. This demotion was seen as a direct punishment for not giving in to the PMO insistence of granting SNC-Lavalin a DPA. This was at the heart of the interference allegation, since it was seen that the newly appointed Attorney General would now seek to pursue the DPA for SNC-Lavalin, the issue Wilson-Raybould has already made her decision on. The then deputy minister was given directives that the new Attorney General David Lametti was holding conversations with the PM emphasizing the priority of the SNC-Lavalin case.
The only problem with her testimony was that Trudeau had not completely lifted solicitor-client privilege and so there were holes in Wilson-Raybould’s testimony of details she could not disclose. Details like specifically what was discussed in closed door and official meetings. Essentially the meat and potatoes to her whistle blowing. Trudeau has slightly lifted privilege for her testimony which, as he continuously references, was unprecedented. The new Liberal buzzword. And the fact alone that this was unprecedented he now cites as his excuse to why he isn’t fully lifting solicitor-client privilege so Wilson-Raybould can fill in the gaps of her testimony. To justify shutting down the SNC probe over the simple reason for it being unprecedented is literally a political way of saying, “well this has never happened before so there’s no reason to start doing it now.” These are unprecedented times with unprecedented conduct so we need to hear the whole truth on whether this is a scandal or not.
Since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony we have heard from the PCO Michael Wernick twice and Gerald Butts who have all out-right refuted Wilson-Raybould’s claims. Trudeau himself has had every opportunity during every single development to comment to the situation himself. But Jody Wilson-Raybould has never been given the opportunity to return to rebuttal all the allegations now against her from all the other testimony nor has privilege been lifted for her to tell us the whole truth. And now the Liberals have shut down the entire probe and unless the opposition or someone can bring about new information then that’s where this whole thing dies. And that’s not right, this is an abuse of power over something that’s even attracted the attention of the OECD over suspicion of bribery.
The following is my paraphrasing of the Liberal narrative (with citations) since the globe and mail story broke to serve as a cliffnotes summary of the entire Jody Wilson-Raybould/SNC-Lavalin scandal:
(Trudeau reacts to Globe and Mail article)Trudeau: there’s nothing to this and the globe and mail article is fake news. We didn’t direct anyone to do anything. wilson-raybould’s account of events are being misconstrued and misinterpreted and her seat on cabinet should speak for itself. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, get rekt opposition. LOL.
(Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet and lawyers up) Trudeau: well I’m very sad to see her go but I’m very confused and if she had any concerns then she should’ve brought this to my attention, which she never did. This whole thing is just really one big misunderstand.
(then Butts resigns)Trudeau: Well it’s the respect Butts has for our institutions is the reason why he’s stepping down because he felt it would be best and he continues to have my full confidence and friendship and gratitude. It wasn’t Butts who failed us, it was all of us who fail him. And by us I really mean you. All of you.
(After Wilson-Raybould’s testimony) Trudeau: Well this has been a tough last few weeks because of a few minor disagreements. But first let’s talk about all this great stuff we’re doing that’s really more important. like progressive reforms over criminal justice. Jody spoke today and she really was great and fantastic and her truth is just so beautiful. but I already told you, we didn’t direct shit. So we just agree to disagree. Her decision about SNC-Lavalin was hers alone to make, not mine. I’m no lawyer. So I disagree with everything she said. But hey, we got ourselves an ethic commissioner on the payroll, I’m more than happy to let this dude with no legal authority to look into whether or not anything criminal went down. More than happy to let that guy and that guy alone to look into this.
(At a press conference to discuss a Lunar mission) Trudeau: There was a time when people used the stars to navigate, the sun to tell time and that’s just cool man. You see I brought my daughter with me? I’m doing my part guys! Girls in STEM! We all know science is better when we embrace feminism. Let’s talk science! Can’t we all just get along!? STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS ABOUT SNC-LAVALIN!!!
(then Jane Philpott resigns over lack of confidence in Trudeau)Trudeau: Well Philpott did great work and we appreciate it and will continue it. But this is just an example to how we embrace diverse opinions and points of view and Ms. Philpott is entitled to her truth and I’m entitled to my truth and we’ll continue to listen with open ears and open hearts and oh and by the way, did I mention climate change is really important?
Wernick’s testimony: Jesus H double hockey sticks guys, there is just SO much partisanship going on here right now with all these questions that I really think come the election, we’re gonna see some assassination attempts. Everyone is just bullying us and that’s not fair! I didn’t do nothing wrong!
Butt’s testimony: Jody’s fantastic and credible and did I mention fantastic? And she has her truth and in her truth she experiences things very truthfully. However in MY truth she’s a lying fucking bitch. And I’m also entitled to my truth.
Trudeau: Well you know it’s my job to protect jobs so if protecting jobs makes me wrong, I don’t wanna be right, baby. That all just comes with the pressure of the job and I guess the pressure of such burdens was too much for Jody. She could’ve come to me but she didn’t and boy-o-boy I wish she had. Dialogue is crucial and it’s clear this was a case of an erosion of trust. My daddy and me have different governing styles but one thing we both really cared about was the principle of justice. Daddy always wanted a just society and those are the values he raised me on. So justice is something I’m really passionate the most about out of every one of us. Speaking of justice, did I mention that reconciliation and justice for our first nations people is what really matters here? Let’s talk about that.
Wernick’s 2nd testimony: I HAVE SUBMITTED ALL MY FACEBOOK COMMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SO MEAN TO ME AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT IT! SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR NEGATIVE COMMENTS! HOW DARE YOU OR ANYONE ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! I’VE BEEN A CAREER POLITICIAN SINCE PAUL MARTIN. I HAVE MADE GOOD FRIENDS IN MY CAREER, AND SOME OF THOSE FRIENDS NOW WORK AT SNC-LAVALIN AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO MY OFFICE WITH MY DIRECT EXTENSION TO REACH ME PERSONALLY AT ANY TIME! THEY EVEN INVITE ME TO ALL THEIR OFFICE GET TOGETHERS! WE’RE BASICALLY FAMILY! THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT ME ON THEIR PAYROLL!!! *oppositions’ jaws drop to the floor*
(days later Wernick declares his retirement and effectively resigns from office) Wernick: YEAH WELL THE CONSERVATIVES ACCUSE ME OF NOT LIKING THEM, WELL GUESS WHAT I DON’T LIKE THEM EITHER! HOW DARE THEY ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! THOSE DIRTY FUCKING CONSERVATIVE NEANDERTHALS!!!
*Opposition tables an emergency meeting to call Wilson-Raybould back before the committee to speak with full solicitor-client privilege lifted* *Liberals use their majority power to immediately end the meeting before anyone can take a vote on the matter and then use their majority to finally end the SNC-Lavalin probe before presenting the new federal budget to the house and for the media to now report on the budget rather than SNC-Lavalin* Opposition: “COVER UP!“
*Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes resigns the Liberal party and declares she will be running as an independent in the next election and also alleges mistreatment and hostility from the PM*Trudeau: Look, we’ve been over this. Her truth, my truth, blah blah blah, whatever she was a fucking bitch anyway.
Liberals/Trudeau: Guys, look at our budget, see what I did there? Money for millenials, money for the seniors, money for all! I’m giving you all the money we’ve got! Actually, technically, I’m taking money from your children and grandchildren and giving that to you as well. Name 1 person you know who’s more generous than me. THAT’S RIGHT! YOU CAN’T! What’s that? Who? Who? Wilson-Raybould? Oh, shit, I remember her! Yeah, see, the thing is we COULD get more testimony and we COULD lift solicitor-client privilege BUT, BUT, BUUUUUUT, we’ve heard from so many different people and there’s just so much information out there and I mean, how many times do we expect Jody to talk afterall? I mean, I could lift privilege but that’s never been done before so… why would we do that now? She could always stand up in the house and talk for 60 seconds without privilege lifted. Man, oh, man, I really spoil her. She’s spoiled.
This situation IS important to follow and to know about. And it does make us ask a lot of tough questions:
1.Can the attorney general operate as a partisan MP?
Does the attorney general need to be completely detached from the government? If the government that ran on ethics and reform and transparency and progressivism in such a big way STILL allows corporate lobbyists to gain direct access to the PMO then we have a real problem. And so we need to figure out how to prevent future interference from happening. Simply replacing the government with another party won’t solve this problem. If interference CAN happen it inevitably WILL happen. That being said, I do believe that SNC-Lavalin has every right to donate to a party and lobby that party for favours. But I expect that party to operate within the boundaries of the law, not just create loop holes to create a system of rewarding those within the party’s inner circle and punish those who aren’t. and sure, there’s a lot of that that goes on at all levels of government but apathy is not the correct response to this behaviour. This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see in Russia with Putin. Not Canada.
We need reforms. and I believe the DPA remediation agreements reeks of just this. There may be a role for DPA if it prevents corporations from fucking around with their taxes but if it protects companies like SNC-Lavalin then it’s not right. BUT a court ruled that SNC wouldn’t qualify for a remediation agreement. So maybe the DPA itself isn’t the problem here. It’s a complex issue that’s going on here and I think the real issue now is that the cover up is becoming worse than the crime. We won’t get a chance to even find out what exactly went wrong here unless we can get the whole truth from Jody Wilson-Raybould. A person who I think, honestly, is a modern day hero for not letting partisanship interfere with her role as attorney general.
2. When is it appropriate to impose public/legal investigations on a majority government? (And how do we prevent opposition from abusing this process?)
With the Liberal majority government simply shutting down the scandal probe, there really are no sufficient checks and balances in place to hold the government accountable in moments of conflict like this. The only real option the opposition has here is to put forth a motion of non-confidence but I don’t even really know if anything would come of that and without any third party investigations it seems way overkill over something we are in the dark about. First Wilson-Raybould comes forth as a whistle blower. And the Liberals basically treated her as a rabble rouser, a fringe conspiracy theorist and there was nothing to see here. and if it wasn’t for the opposition and great work from almost exclusively the Globe and Mail, they would’ve just swept this under the rug.
Then Butts resigned, signalling just how big of a deal this could be if he was going to be a fall guy. considering how close he worked with Trudeau and how firmly Trudeau affirmed that Butts speaks for him. Then Jane Philpott resigned. Not some backbencher MP, the head of the treasury. directly denouncing the government and their handling of the situation. everything but out right cries of corruption. and we’re not supposed to listen to that? Everything that’s developed since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony has only further validated everything she’s come forth with and contradicted everything Trudeau has said. Except for the testimony of individuals who have resigned over the issue.
but after everything that has transpired Trudeau still refuses to lift privilege to allow Wilson-Raybould to give us the whole truth of what is at the heart of the reason for her whistle blowing. And when the opposition tried to table an emergency meeting to call for a second testimony they used their majority power to adjourn the meeting immediately. Just simply shut down all debate over the subject. If this is not a direct act of contempt for the operations of a democratic operations of our parliament then I do not know what is. And as easy as it is to dismiss howling conservatives proclaiming “cover up! cover up!” I just don’t see how at this stage in the game these actions would be defined any other way. I do believe that we are witnessing a direct attempt to cover something up that the majority government is using their power to keep in the dark. and although Wilson-Raybould said no one has broken the law, that doesn’t mean ethics violations are criminal acts and it’s the severity of the ethical violation that is the very reason why the OECD has come out stating it is concerned about this government’s actions. And if they suspect bribery then how the hell do we not demand answers?
3. What do Liberal voters do now with their vote?
If this liberal government is guilty of corruption, let’s just say, then what do liberal voters do come election time? This is why I wanted vote reform. I don’t know what that reform would look like. It’s hard. but majority of us vote against parties rather than for them. That’s what I’ll be doing in election time. I believe this government has broken most of it’s promises and crossed too many ethical lines and I think this government has polarized this country more than it’s united us. So I will be voting conservative to bring down the Liberal government. And then maybe in another 4 years I’ll find myself voting Liberal to bring down that Conservative government, assuming they win. Even if they don’t, at least to hopefully reduce them to a minority government to limit the powers they clearly have no problem abusing.
As much as Trudeau wants to label the conservative government as like the ghost of stephen harper, it really is a renewed party with fresh faces. The party fails an election and they hold new leadership races and others step down to make way for new candidates. And some of those new faces are really remarkable people who were clearly born to do this. Yes, they operate within the same conservative governing philosophy but this is as close to a new party as we get. The liberal party transformed several times before they finally took government. People forget that it was the NDP who were official opposition before the last election. And I think it’s perfectly fair that if a party fails to meet their major promises or crosses an ethical line that people choose to vote them out of power. And if that means trying out a reformed conservative party then so be it. If it means voting for the first time for the NDP, so be it. It sends a clear message to Liberals that, “no we are not happy with the direction you’ve gone. go back to the drawing board and bring something new to the table.” and that may very well lead to a stronger, better party. OR we see that the reformed conservative party has actually done a bang up job and we decide to grant them another 4 years to keep it up. Or NDP. We are the ultimate deciders when it comes to politicians term limits.
But that’s also part of the problem with the way we vote. I’m not actually voting against a party or for a party even though that’s the way my vote functions. I’m actually just voting on a local representative to be my MP. even though I’ll likely never meet them or have a conversation or any interaction with them. Or I may really like my MP and insist on voting for them, even if I hate the party leader and caucus members. But am I now meant to punish the MP I like best and vote for my second choice or third choice MP to be able to have my vote act as protest to the leader and caucus I oppose? Do I vote against my philosophical values and preferred governing style to vote against the actions of the party philosophically and governing style-wise I align with so I can punish their reprehensible behaviour? You can’t vote for the devil you know without then voting for the devil.
And I really believe we all do better when we are more focussed on our local municipalities than we are focussed on the country as a whole. I may be pro-choice without a religious upbringing but why should I care what a pro-life bible thumper in alberta thinks? That doesn’t affect my life or my community. So why should my vote impact alberta? why should alberta’s vote impact me? again, I don’t have the answers to these things but this is a big question that needs to be asked because it’s a really relevant one that affects us all.
Politicians and most of the commentators really aren’t asking these questions and having these conversations. To the media, this is all just a big game as if election time is just a new season of game of thrones. Politics actually isn’t sports. and to treat it so flippantly is to just to avoid actually trying to improve the country. Media has a responsibility to do more than merely react to news, they are supposed to be facilitating the debate around it so we can move forward together. not stand stagnant and indifferent and watch everything deteriorate around us. But I say let’s not respond to these things with apathy, let’s do our best to care and to value our vote as we value our own existence and our voices and roles in society to make it function and thrive. So however you vote, make sure you believe in it.
“Governments don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. That is against their interests. They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept it.”
Language is power. In the attempt to make reprehensible language more palatable both the extremes of the far-left and far-right have utilized a modified terminology which acts as a cocktail of existing words being twisted into new words to appear more credible at their faux sophistication but also to communicate to a specific audience while leaving the rest of us, who may object to said language, in the fog. The far-right language tends to be more blatant with it’s offense whereas the far-left is more likely to hide concepts behind a frankenstein of “isms” and qualifying prefaces.
My intention here is to help you become more aware of the coded language others may use to manipulate you. If you know someone who engages with a lot of these types of language then this COULD be an indicator that they are becoming ideologically possessed. Good books for them to read to de-radicalize them would be 12 rules for life by Jordan Peterson, Righteous Minds by Jonathan Haidt and Political Tribes by Amy Chua. If they’re not too far gone, these may be books to help pull them away from the cliffs edge.
Ok. I feel the need to start here, with this. 4chan has just become such a central point to the culture war that I think anyone who wants the full context to what’s been going on needs to understand 4chan. Most journalists will simply refer to 4chan as the breeding ground of hate. But there’s a lot to this. And people tend to forget what the internet was like before 2016. Meaning people really only started paying attention after Trump won the election. Launching this deranged obsession with censoring and banning everything distasteful.
As much as I’d like to blame Trump for everything I think the real issue here is social media. Facebook and Twitter and these major companies have essentially served to pool EVERYONE in to the same platform where we are all confront with each other at the same time and if it’s anything I’ve learned from the internet growing up is that there’s a reason we form cleeks. Because there certainly are some communities that are just incompatible with other communities. And there’s something liberating in having your own corner of the internet to flee to from the stress of daily life.
And in a world wherever everything you say and do is recorded and saved to a cloud by your smart watch, your online profile, your chat forums, And there’s nothing wrong with that. If we ALL got along and conformed to one centralized community I honestly think we would lose the colour and flavour in the world. Not that I’m trying to defend or apologize for the most deplorable among us but these are not normal people. Don’t fool yourself. This isn’t really a conversation about hate and bigotry. It’s not an “us” vs “Them”. There’s just us. And the real conversation is about mental health. I’d also argue we would lose the ability to innovate as we would all align to the same conventional thinking and doing. Even if we managed to conform to one single entity it would just be a matter of time until a renaissance emerged. Because we are individuals first with individual needs and desires.
I think for one to truly understand 4chan you must first understand sites like newgrounds. See the thing is, the internet has always been a flaming asshole of trolls and shenanigans. If anything it’s only gotten better. But today thanks to social media it’s in our face, forcing us to look at it 24/7 so it’s created the illusion that it’s worse:
Watch the history of newgrounds:
Watch the history of 4chan:
Watch the history of 4chan Boards:
Watch Christopher “Moot” Pool deliver a 2010 TED talk about 4chan:
Watch the Tumblr-4chan wars:
Watch the Triggering of Shia Labeouf; he will not divide us:
Watch Top 10 4chan pranks:
Watch Top 5 scariest 4chan posts:
Top 15 Mysteries solved by 4chan:
Watch Documentary How Anonymous hackers changed the world:
The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.
Beginning in August 2014, a harassment campaign targeted several women in the video game industry; notably game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn’s former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats.
Gamergate proponents (“Gamergaters”) have stated that they were a movement, but had no official leaders or manifesto. Gamergate supporters organized anonymously or pseudonymously on online platforms such as 4chan, Internet Relay Chat, Twitter, and Reddit. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. Gamergate supporters said there was unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters engaged in. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims.
The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to the harassment campaign have focused on ways to minimise harm and prevent similar events. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment.
Watch PSA Sitch explain the gamergate controversy:
👌🏻 The “OK” hand sign:
Started as a trolling prank on 4chan to trick media into believing this symbol was a nod to white supremacy. The idea being the fingers form a ‘W’ and the hole between the fingers and forearm form a ‘P’, referencing the words “White Power”. Since this is a common symbol everyone from basketball players to chefs to almost everyone else uses, the joke is everything is a white supremacy conspiracy. The media, predictably, ate it up and now those on the left regard the symbol as a modern day nazi salute. The best most recent example would probably be Cathy Griffin referencing the Covington kids on twitter. The prank was so successful that many now use the symbol in memes and in photobombing so much that the symbol has lost it’s irony.
Watch Tim Pool cover Sweden government acknowledging 4chan memes as hate symbols:
Watch Tim Pool cover hate symbols derived from 4chan:
Another 4chan prank which has made it’s way on the Swedish government list of hate symbols. Widely received by media around the world that people are using milk to celebrate visible whiteness and white supremacy.
Make America Great Again:
The MAGA hat has become so polarizing that to show such open support for Donald Trump in such a public way is, to the left, a symbol that advocates for intolerance and bigotry. The belief is when Trump says “make America great again” he’s actually saying that minorities and progressivism has made America weak and in order to make it ‘great again’ we must amend equal rights initiatives and disproportionately privilege ‘white men’ over everyone else. Even if what Trump is actually means bringing back jobs to the lower and middle class and improving the economy. This is how it is widely received despite how Trump explains it. It’s more than likely, given how often Trump has made reference to Ronald Reagan that he has taken a note from his 1980 campaign slogan “let’s make america great again”. It’s important to note that Reagan was able to appeal to working class democratic voters and in many ways this is also a Trump tactic.
Today it’s like holding a sign at a homosexual wedding which reads “God hates fagots”. It says immigrants are inherently evil and unwelcome. It says women and minorities do not deserve equal rights to white men. Because this is such an egregious offense, the majority of those who wear it often do so as a method of trolling those triggered by it. But in the context of wearing it at political events or rallies, it’s simply a form of solidarity to support Donald Trump and the policies he’s initiated since taking presidency. Such as support for the wall, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem and Trump’s support for free speech, etc. However to the left, wearing a MAGA hat is the equivalent to waving a Nazi flag and, to an extremely small minority, some do wear it as such.
this is the emoji form of Pepe the frog. This is such a loaded topic that I really feel a mini 10 minute doc video will be a better way to explain this one:
56%: Also known as Amerimutt or La Creatura, refers to the claim that the USA is 56% white.
1488 or 14/88:
a reference to two racist concepts, the Fourteen Words created by white supremacist David Lane (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” or more rarely “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth”) and 88 (Which originally referenced Lane’s “88 Precepts” but now represents two H’s (8th letter of the alphabet) to make “HH”, for Heil Hitler.) It is claimed that the 14 words were inspired by a specific sentence from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf which is exactly 88 words in length, though neither Lane nor his publisher Fourteen Word Press ever claimed this and it is probably a coincidence.
A compliment to describe someone who is authoritative, reasonable and views situations objectively.
Used to describe male feminists, male ‘allies’, males who virtue signal and/or males who subscribe to any ideology which require they engage with self hatred and/or self destructive behaviour. The soy boy is a characterization that all “girly men” likely drink soy milk with the theory that soy contains phytoestrogen and therefore drinking soy raises the levels of estrogen in your body. This then gives men feminine attributes including the possibility of developing breasts, making men more prone to the feminism ideology and other effeminate features like if you feel that you are required to speak on behalf of women. You are a male. Let women speak for themselves. but this boundary confusion between gender identity can be a direct symptom to heightened estrogen via soy milk product. Note: these are rumours and myth not exactly backed up by science. More based on trolling over immutable traits shared between men who “virtue signal” or identify as “allies” or “male feminists” or other such champions of political correctness.
For example. If your avatar display photo depicts you sipping from a mug with large glasses and a single raised eyebrow you likely have higher than usual levels of estrogen as brought about by regular ingestion of soy based product. Most likely soy milk specifically. Other signs could be the desire to let your partner participate in an open relationship while neglecting your sexual relationship in the process. Hence the term cuckold. And personality traits like these make you less of a man, hence the term Beta. If:
you are less attractive to women than the average male,
you can be easily killed,
you have utopian visions of the world while unable to keep your own household and/or bedroom in functional, clean order,
you still live with your parents as an adult child,
you pursue expediency and struggle with delayed gratification,
often emotionally immature and unstable at times
your partner finds better companionship from the dog you share
Chances are you are a beta male. Not intended to be terminology from any one specific scientific journal but more a trolling oriented attempt to measure value from leadership qualities, overall competence and your contribution to your family and society as a whole and place that at the heart of what it means to be a man. Suggesting that if you score low in these categories, a good man you do not make.
Watch Pewdiepie satire on soyboys:
Blood and soil:
one of the rallying cries of the alt-right. It is a translation from the German Blut und Boden, a phrase which originated in German 19th-century agrarian nationalist-romanticism, and which was adopted by the Nazi Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Under the original Nazis, it indicated then that the original descendants (Blut) belonged to the land (Boden).
a conservative who doesn’t hold ethno-nationalist sentiments on race and immigration. Or: they are a conservative who is cucked instead of based
Feels before reals:
The habit of people to react to a debate or argument by the way they feel about it, emotionally. A criticism without any real critique other than the emotional response it elicits. Or the prioritizing of one’s emotions over objective rationalization. A term influenced in large part by Ben Shapiro’s famous quote, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” And in a small way by Gad Saad’s quote, “fuck your feelings.”
Goy (plural: goyim):
is the standard Hebrew biblical term for a “nation”, but has also acquired the meaning of “someone who is not Jewish” (synonymous with gentile). It is not an inherently pejorative term. The term is used in order to reinforce the idea of an International Jewish Conspiracy.
The politicization of identity. In common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics, or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group. In academic usage, the term has been used to refer to a wide range of political activities and theoretical analysis rooted in experiences of injustice shared by different social groups.
It’s also the action of putting emphasis on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, ability or disability and gender are used to artificially restructure the societal hierarchy. If you are a white man then it would be considered politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a black woman. If you are a black woman it would be politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a disabled LGBT person of colour. The politicizing of identity.
Government can participate in identity politics when they introduce a bias into policy making where they essentially create a protected group over all other groups. Like when the Trudeau government put forth motion 103 (referred to the anti-islamophobia motion) where they condemn ‘hateful conduct’ against Islam and Muslims. Despite the data that reveals a rise in anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination that remains prevalent, the Liberal government voted down an amendment which would include all other religions and religious people. Studies are now being done to study Islamophobia while ignoring other forms of hate crimes.
Or when Justin Trudeau produced a gender parity cabinet despite the fact that roughly only 26% of MPs were women. prioritizing identity and visible representation (diversity) over merit. Citing the justification for doing so as “because it’s 2015”. Implying that the concept of meritocracy was old fashion, outdated, obsolete thinking. Also see intersectionality.
The term intersectionality was coined by Black feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. ”Intersectionality“ represents an analytic framework that attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society. It is widely seen that intersectionality is just a new label for marxism in an attempt to make marxism more palatable.
Watch: Panel discussion on “is intersectionality a religion?”:
The supposed competition for oppression points to determine one’s place on the progressive stack or the intersectional hierarchy. In 1993, the phrase “oppression olympics” was coined by feminist author and activist Elizabeth “Betita” Martínez to challenge the idea of the “hierarchy of oppressions” when addressing inequalities faced by minorities.
used by the right and left to describe those who live conventional lives and often opt out of participating in the culture war. They generally accept mainstream narratives at face value whether that mainstream be the hyper partisan Fox news or CNN, if they follow any news at all. They likely do not participate in online discourse over social media and are generally unaware of cultural developments. Aka they are NORMAL people. A derogatory undertone to describe a person who is considered neutral within the culture war.
In video games an NPC is a “Non-Player Character”. A bot or program often used to be interacted with within the video game. Your character walks into a building and there are other players around to interact with however there is no real person behind the character, you are interacting with the game software. The characters are programmed to say one or two things or have predetermined dialogue when receiving a quest or task from them. Where one’s actions are not a product of free will but limited to the parameters programmed for it. Also subject to all possible glitches that come along with such programming.
Watch a compilation of glitchy NPCs interactions in the popular game Oblivion:
This is often used to describe the excessive reporting by MSNBC and CNN of the Trump/Russia collusion as “orange man bad”. In other words you don’t really need to listen to what’s actually being said because all conclusions of all panel discussions and all breaking news and all analysis will lead to the same “trump is bad” sentiment. It’s engaging in a debate when you have already determined the outcome of the debate and only intend to steer the conversation towards that conclusion, without honestly contending with other sides of the argument.
An example of NPC culture on the right-wing would be how everything Trudeau ever does is always the worst possible thing. Whether sitting at the dinner table at holidays or sharing thoughts on facebook or engaging in debates using the same overused tropes rhetoric to make the same point they always make that Trudeau is the worst prime minister ever. Whether Trudeau gets a haircut or initiates a non-binding motion, it’s always just further proof that Liberals are ruining the country. They just become a talking head for the opposition.
In terms of ideologies, an NPC is someone who similarly reduces themselves to a mere talking head for the doctrine of the ideology they subscribe to. For libertarians regulation is always the enemy. For free speech absolutists speech always trumps everything else despite how indefensible the speech may be. For feminism it’s that women are always victims at the hands of men despite what studies and data reveal otherwise. For the identity politics crowd it’s the refusal to believe that the very perception of reality does not exist outside of the way they decide it to be, without needing to justify such claims. White men are allowed to have their human rights violated because they are all collectively tainted, guilty and unqualified to hold independent opinions.
The neo-marxists will in one minute claim there is no such thing as biological sex differences and the only reason we even have the conventions around men and women is because as a society we impose such conventions on blank slate babies living in an oppressive world of stereotyping but then in the next minute completely validate one’s desire to transition from one sex to the other. Without any interest of stepping outside of their confirmation bias social bubble, these NPCs remain within the parameters of their programming.
a term modeled by post-modernism with which it shares certain concepts and methods, and may be thought of as a reaction to or departure from colonialism in the same way postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. The ambiguous term colonialism may refer either to a system of government or to an ideology or world view underlying that system—in general postcolonialism represents an ideological response to colonialist thought, rather than simply describing a system that comes after colonialism. The term postcolonial studies may be preferred for this reason.
Postcolonialism encompasses a wide variety of approaches, and theoreticians may not always agree on a common set of definitions. On a simple level, it may seek through anthropological study to build a better understanding of colonial life from the point of view of the colonized people, based on the assumption that the colonial rulers are unreliable narrators.
(this falls under why lately Shakespeare has been removed from literature studies as through the modern lense that intersectionality provides, Shakespeare’s work is illegitimate material to study given his place of privilege and the lack of his ability to speak to the minority experience. His position of authority was deemed to be falsely appointed to him by those in positions of power and we ought to be observing him as ‘just another dead white man’ within his appropriate place on the social hierarchy.)
Narration: is the use of a written or spoken commentary to convey a story to an audience. Narration encompasses a set of techniques through which the creator of the story presents their story, including:
Narrative point of view: the perspective (or type of personal or non-personal “lens”) through which a story is communicated
Narrative voice: the format through which a story is communicated
Narrative time: the grammatical placement of the story’s time-frame in the past, the present, or the future.
A narrator is a personal character or a non-personal voice that the creator (author) of the story develops to deliver information to the audience, particularly about the plot. In the case of most written narratives (novels, short stories, poems, etc.), the narrator typically functions to convey the story in its entirety. The narrator may be a voice devised by the author as an anonymous, non-personal, or stand-alone entity; as the author as a character; or as some other fictional or non-fictional character appearing and participating within their own story. The narrator is considered participant if he/she is a character within the story, and non-participant if he/she is an implied character or an omniscient or semi-omniscient being or voice that merely relates the story to the audience without being involved in the actual events. Some stories have multiple narrators to illustrate the storylines of various characters at the same, similar, or different times, thus allowing a more complex, non-singular point of view.
Narration encompasses not only who tells the story, but also how the story is told (for example, by using stream of consciousness or unreliable narration). In traditional literary narratives (such as novels, short stories, and memoirs), narration is a required story element; in other types of (chiefly non-literary) narratives, such as plays, television shows, video games, and films, narration is merely optional.
Sometimes the narrator’s unreliability is made immediately evident. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to the character’s unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story’s end. In some cases, the reader discovers that in the foregoing narrative, the narrator had concealed or greatly misrepresented vital pieces of information. Such a twist ending forces readers to reconsider their point of view and experience of the story. In some cases the narrator’s unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.
the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby a nation establishes and maintains its domination over one or more other territories. Wikipedia
This is often used by postmodern neo-marxists to justify a form of protest aimed at attacking all aspects of whiteness in society. Everything from the tearing down of historical statues or monuments to changing education curriculum to remove the likes of Shakespeare from study. These are all viewed as forms of decolonization. As the western world itself is founded by racism, sexism, bigotry, and a range of phobias (according to the postmodern neomarxists).
the social construction of “whiteness” as an ideology tied to social status. Pioneers in the field include W. E. B. Du Bois (“Jefferson Davis as a Representative of Civilization”, 1890; Darkwater, 1920), James Baldwin (The Fire Next Time, 1963), Theodore W. Allen (The Invention of the White Race, 1976, expanded in 1995), Ruth Frankenberg (White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness, 1993), author and literary critic Toni Morrison (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, 1992) and historian David Roediger (The Wages of Whiteness, 1991). By the mid-1990s, numerous works across many disciplines analyzed whiteness, and it has since become a topic for academic courses, research and anthologies.
A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present that is inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites. Since the 19th century, some writers have argued that the phenotypical significances attributed to specific races are without biological association, and that race is therefore not a valid biological concept. Many scientists have demonstrated that racial theories are based upon an arbitrary clustering of phenotypical categories and customs, and can overlook the problem of gradations between categories.
Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek write about whiteness as a “strategic rhetoric,” asserting, in the essay “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric”, that whiteness is a product of “discursive formation” and a “rhetorical construction”. Nakayama and Krizek write, “there is no ‘true essence’ to ‘whiteness’: there are only historically contingent constructions of that social location.” Nakayama and Krizek also suggest that by naming whiteness, one calls out its centrality and reveals its invisible, central position. Whiteness is considered normal and neutral, therefore, to name whiteness means that one identifies whiteness as a rhetorical construction which can be dissected to unearth its values and beliefs.
Major areas of research in whiteness studies include the nature of white privilege and white identity, the historical process by which a white racial identity was created, the relation of culture to white identity, and possible processes of social change as they affect white identity. Other topics among whiteness studies include “Whiteness and architecture” and “Whiteness and education”.
Writer David Horowitz draws a distinction between whiteness studies and other analogous disciplines. “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”Dagmar R. Myslinska, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, argues that whiteness studies overlooks the heterogeneity of whites’ experience, be it due to class, immigrant status, or geographical location.
Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, has sharply criticized whiteness studies, writing that it “points to a new low in moral vacuity and civilizational self-loathing” and is an example of “academic pusillanimity.” According to Kay, whiteness studies “cuts to the chase: It is all, and only, about white self-hate.”
Kay noted the leanings of the field by quoting Jeff Hitchcock, co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture (CSWAC) who stated in a 1998 speech:
There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of colour…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today… which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it….We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.
Regarding whiteness studies (WS) more broadly, Kay wrote:
WS teaches that if you are white, you are branded, literally in the flesh, with evidence of a kind of original sin. You can try to mitigate your evilness, but you can’t eradicate it. The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University [sic, Ignatiev was a Ph.D. student and then a tutor at Harvard, but never a professor], now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race — in other words, to abolish the privileges of the white skin.”
In 1974–1975, Allen extended his analysis of “white privilege”, racial oppression, and social control to the colonial period with his ground-breaking Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race. With continued research, he developed his ideas as his seminal two-volume The Invention of the White Race published in 1994 and 1997.
For almost forty years, Allen offered a detailed historical analysis of the origin, maintenance, and functioning of “white-skin privilege” and “white privilege” in such writings as: “White Supremacy in U.S. History” (1973); “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race” (1975); “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control” (1994, 2012); “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012);“Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race'” Parts 1 and 2 (1998); “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy” (1998); “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census” (1999); and “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”;
In his historical work, Allen asserted that:
the “white race” was invented as a ruling class social control formation in the late 17th-/early-18th century Anglo-American plantation colonies (principally Virginia and Maryland);
central to this process was the ruling-class plantation bourgeoisie conferring “white race” privileges on European-American working people;
these privileges were not only against the interests of African Americans, they were also “poison”, “ruinous”, a baited hook, to the class interests of working people;
white supremacy, reinforced by “white skin privilege”, has been the main retardant of working-class consciousness in the US; and
struggle for radical social change should direct principal efforts at challenging white supremacy and “white skin privileges”.:pp. 10–11, 34 Allen’s work influenced Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and sectors of the “new left” and paved the way for “white privilege”, “race as social construct”, and “whiteness studies”. He also raised important questions about developments in those areas, and he avoided using the term “whiteness”, using quotation marks when he did.:pp. 8, 78 n. 187, 80–89
Laura Pulido writes about the relation of white privilege to racism.
“White privilege [is] a highly structural and spatial form of racism … I suggest that historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege and have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.”
Writers such as Peggy McIntosh say that social, political, and cultural advantages are accorded to whites in global society. She argues that these advantages seem invisible to white people, but obvious to non-whites. McIntosh argues that whites utilize their whiteness, consciously or unconsciously, as a framework to classify people and understand their social locations. In addition, even though many white people understand that whiteness is associated with privilege, they do not acknowledge their privilege because they view themselves as average and non-racist. Essentially, whiteness is invisible to white people.
“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untouched way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (188).
McIntosh calls for Americans to acknowledge white privilege so that they can more effectively attain equality in American society. She argues,
“To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects” (192).
Watch Jordan Peterson Debunk white privilege:
a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man’s access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society’s ideal masculine norm. Wikipedia
Dead White man/men:
there are historical figures such as philosophers like Socrates, playwrights like Shakespeare and founders like Sir John A. Macdonald, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and inventors like Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein. Through the lense of intersectionality and neo-marxism, these men are all visibly white and therefore placed low on the intersectionality hierarchy as tainted and guilty by association with the crimes and immoral actions of other fellow white men. The idea is that they have risen to prominence as a result of illegitimate privileging by those in positions of power and in doing so they have corrupted their positions and fields of study. And no white man can escape the crimes of the past.
Even if the men mentioned here vary in their ethnicity, these ethnicities are leveled at the feet of their visible identity. ‘Whiteness’ encompasses Jews, Italians, British, Scandinavian and anyone else who “passes” for white in the same logic as a transexual man “passes” for a woman. To classify white historically prominent figures as merely “dead white men” is an attempt to retroactively revoke their positions of power and equate them to the level of living white men today which is the bottom social class as collectively tainted and guilty and unqualified to have opinions. Banning the study of these figures is also seen as an attempt to “decolonize” the current system of oppression which their actions served to prop up. To make way for more “diverse” voices which have more authority.
Like Kylo-Ren said in The Last Jedi, “let the past die. Kill it if you have to.” But no, there is no ‘culture war’ going on. I’m just crazy. And soon I’ll just be another dead white man.
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965. Wikipedia
used as a qualifier word to operate as a red flag. A toxic relationship is characterized by insecurity, self-centeredness, mean spiritedness, power struggles over control, abusive in nature or enabling of bad habits, attitudes or codependence. Likewise, the word ‘toxic’ holds the same characterization as it is used to qualify a person or group. To signal to others the nature of that individual or group. Usually used for the purposes of politicizing. An attempt to box an individual or group and isolate them from public discourse as someone to be not listened to and dismissed. I.e. this person only gave Captain Marvel a negative review because they are a toxic troll. Not just any troll. Not someone looking for a laugh trying to prank someone. A toxic troll looking to cause harm by their actions.
Captain Marvel and Brie Larson have started to create a blueprint for how to handle toxic trolls – Vox news
It’s effectiveness comes from it’s broadness. Because it doesn’t point in any one direction as to what the nature of the behaviour is, it serves to signal to others that regardless the accusation, there is credibility. To claim someone is sexist, racist or homophobic you generally are required to cite a reference to this claim to explain the prejudice. By merely calling someone “toxic” you get to indicate that there could be various ways in which this person has displayed prejudice and from there you need only cite something disagreeable rather than offensive and the rest can be left up to others projection to fill in the blanks. A person can leave a comment that based on the marketing and personal views on the movie’s main lead they are not looking forward to said movie. For being negative or disagreeable in general the commenter is now vulnerable to being characterized, if nothing else, as toxic. And is vulnerable to having their dissent censored by website conduct policies seeking to weed out ‘hate speech’.
Terry Kupers defines toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”.
Watch the Gillette advertisement on toxic masculinity:
Watch Joe Rogan react to Toxic masculinity:
Watch Jordan Peterson answer “what is the solution to toxic masculinity”:
In philosophy and in sociology, the term cultural hegemony has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word ἡγεμονία (hegemonia) indicating leadership and rule. In politics, hegemony is the geopolitical method of indirect imperial dominance, with which the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states, by the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than by direct military force, that is, invasion, occupation, and annexation.
part of R. W. Connell‘s gender order theory, which recognizes multiple masculinities that vary across time, culture and the individual. Hegemonic masculinity is defined as a practice that legitimizes powerful men’s dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of the common male population and women, and other marginalized ways of being a man. Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity proposes to explain how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society.
a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism. The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era. Wikipedia
Watch Jordan Peterson explain post-modernism:
encompasses 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Wikipedia
Watch Jordan Peterson Answer “why is marxism so attractive?”:
constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty. Usually used to red flag a person or content as being inappropriate in nature. Those who use the term will often explain the problematic content or person of being “potentially harmful” which is a notion that subscribes to the postmodern concept that harm extends to feelings beyond mere physical altercation. Where ideas are dangerous and words are violence. i.e. to not use a person’s preferred pronoun would be equated to robbing them of their humanity or attempting to exterminate them.
An example of a person who is often described as “problematic” would be Jordan Peterson, author of 12 rules for life. He has been virtually denounced as hateful and accused of abusing his students but as his book has now passed 3 million copies, the hit pieces have all fallen flat. Because those who oppose him cannot make regular slander stick due to the fact that is isn’t a sexist or racist or a homophobe and if anything he actually works to de-radicalize individuals from extremist ideological views. Making his message to the world a net GOOD rather than a net negative. So it’s much easier to simply rate him and his content as problematic.
Because he will have a conversation with anyone and everyone he has taken photos and had conversations with known counter culture ‘trolls’. Even though he has also been denounced as a jewish shill by the ethno-nationalists, that isn’t enough evidence for the postmodern neo-marxists to dismiss concerns around radicalization. And through this guilt-by-association he is deemed problematic. Even though the accusation is hollow and grounded in deceit it still impacts him to this day as he most recently found himself disinvited from a fellowship collaboration to Cambridge University over a study on the Bible. And his book 12 rules for life has been banned from New Zealand in light of the Christchurch shooting. Despite the fact you can still access Mein Kampf.
Land acknowledgements are an ‘honest’ and ‘historically accurate’ way to recognize the traditional First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit territories of a place. They can be presented verbally or visually: think signage, short theatre presentations or simple spoken-word greetings. According to Anishinaabe-kwe Wanda Nanibush, the first curator of Indigenous art at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), land acknowledgements have one goal, regardless of format: They commemorate Indigenous peoples’ principal kinship to the land—and the fact that we have not and cannot be erased from her, our collective first mother. “They’re a starting place to a change in how the land is seen and talked about,” she says. “[They] help redefine how people place themselves in relation to First Peoples.”
Watch Lindsay Shepherd on “why I reject indigenous land acknowledgements”:
Inspired by the 94 recommended calls to action contained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (now known as the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, or NCTR), land acknowledgements are a necessary first step toward honouring the original occupants of a place. They also help Canadians recognize and respect Indigenous peoples’ inherent kinship beliefs when it comes to the land, especially since those beliefs were restricted for so long. (as per locallove.ca)
A reference to the Intersectionality hierarchy where victimhood is synonymous with virtue by granting the dispossessed a status of “marginalization” whether it be people or society or by extension the universe as a whole as being their oppressor, marginalizing them. Add your ethnicity and sexual orientation or gender identity and these will determine your placement on the social hierarchy of intersectionality. Each oppressed check mark representing another virtue to add to the ‘progressive stack’. This is where “virtue signalling” operates as an attempt to accumulate progressive points by proclaiming all the ways in which you utilize your oppression to grant you authority or perhaps your allyship with the oppressed to score points by proxy.
For example, if you were a disabled, lesbian, trans, muslim whos father is black and mother is native then you are essentially untouchable by anyone and everyone. You could probably commit murder and if not for the courts upholding existing laws against murder this society would simply characterize your actions as using the tools of your oppressors against them. BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!? REMEMBER THE CRUSADES!? NONE OF THEM GOT ARRESTED BY COPS IN 2019, SO CONVENIENT!
Whereas if you are a white man you have the opportunity to choose not to breed and further your ethnic privilege. You can ‘step down’ from your voice in society and use your position of power to prop up minorities. Whether you aid their bid for political office or work with non-profit organizations looking to aid marginalized communities or donate your income to such people, these are various ways in which you can seek allyship. When a protest takes place you are expected to participate and use your position of power to disrupt the status quo, by any means necessary, including the use of force. And thus your progressivism stacks ever higher as you seek to climb out of the social hell from where you were placed in the name of progress.
often used to characterize diversity of opinion as more valuable than diversity of identity (sex/gender, race, religion, etc). The idea that all have an equal say in the global conversation and that you should be judged by your ideas, words and opinions rather than by superficial characteristics like skin colour and genitalia. Not used to justify or to promote disparities in visible representation within public spaces or workplaces/institutions but often misconstrued by leftists as a dog whistle to white supremacy and as an objection to immigration and minorities.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.Wikipedia
political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose ultrasonic whistling sound is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.
Watch PSA Sitch explains dog whistling:
a reference to visible diversity. If you are a woman watching a movie without any women you do not have representation. If you’re a person of colour before a jury of white people you do not have representation. If you’re a gay person voting for all straight candidates you do not have visible representation. This form of logic is used to explain what many are now calling “barriers to access”. The argument is that a woman is less likely to run for office if the city council is dominated by men. Less people of colour are likely to apply to jobs at a workplace where majority of employees are white. This lack of ‘visible representation’ creates ‘barriers to access’ as it can serve to signal to others that they are not welcome.
This is also considered an example of patriarchy and white privilege by dominating systems and institutions. In other words if you can find an excuse to stop you from getting involved you can then use your own excuse to cite another excuse as to how society is racist and sexist. Not to say there isn’t any validity to this argument worth exploring but visible representation is nothing more than a palatable way of asking for equal outcomes. The process of eliminating all disparities by enforcing all workplaces and institutions to reach a racial and gender parity of employment. See Equity.
Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a political concept which is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. Wikipedia
Watch Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt explain equality of outcome:
a disparity is a form of discrepancy or inconsistency/imbalance. We can observe economic disparities between different regions in the country. We can observe disparities in career jobs. How majority of plumbers are men and majority of nurses are women. Disparities in earnings between employees between gender and ethnicity. Through the lense of post-modern neo-marxists disparities are the basis for their theories on systematic discrimination with regards to things like wage gaps and gender gaps. Often used to argue for equality of opportunity.
The argument being that all disparities represent discrimination or a result of ‘barriers to access’. Instead of entertaining possible multiple variables that could be influencing these disparities the neo-marxists simply chalk these discrepancies up to discrimination. More so to use as evidence of their greater claims of patriarchy, whiteness and western colonial dominance. Rather than attempting to actually address the disparities in question towards finding an actual solution.
Watch Jordan Peterson on whether men and women can ever truly be technically ‘equal’:
The term safe space refers to places created for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization, most commonly located on university campuses in the western world, but also at workplaces, as in the case of Nokia. Wikipedia
a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).
“there probably should be a trigger warning for people dealing with grief”
The concept behind a trigger warning is to help an individual avoid a “trauma trigger” which is a psychological stimulus that prompts recall of a previous traumatic experience. The stimulus itself need not be frightening or traumatic and may be only indirectly or superficially reminiscent of an earlier traumatic incident, such as a scent or a piece of clothing.Wikipedia
Watch a panel discussion between Christina Hoff-Sommers, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying mediated by Peter Boghossian about trigger warnings, safe spaces and academic freedoms:
a derogatory term to characterize liberals as retards.
argued to originate from the movie Fight Club where Brad Pitt’s character says “You are not special. You’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else.” It is a term used to describe a person who is overly sensitive. Often used by conservatives to make fun of liberals. Also used to refer to social justice warriors for their rhetoric around compassion, feelings, trigger warnings and safe spaces.
The white genocide conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, generally associated with neo-Nazi, far-right, alt-right, identitarian and white nationalist, supremacist, and white separatist ideologies, … Wikipedia
the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Wikipedia
Watch Vice news cover one method of alleviating white guilt:
Watch Lauren Chen Debunk white guilt:
Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to “the people”, often juxtaposing this group against the “elite”. There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. Wikipedia
Social Justice Warrior:
an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. Wikipedia
SJWs operate in online mobs and tend to operate in coordinated attacks to slander and spam whomever they deem problematic. Anyone who speaks out against political correctness will likely see their social media spammed with threats and accusations. They can also find that the mob has gone to their employer and attempted to get the individual fired.
In some cases SJWs can track down their target’s personal information and DOX them by releasing their personal contact and address information out on the internet for the world to see and for others to use to harass the person in question. In the most extreme cases SJWs will call local police with fake threats which triggers swat teams to respond and infiltrate the targeted person’s home. In one occasion of swatting a person was actually shot and killed by police.
Watch Joe Rogan with Jamie Kilstein about being a reformed SJW:
Watch Blaire White on how she used to be a SJW:
Watch We the Internet TV comedy sketch with a SJW therapist:
Watch exposing social justice with Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay:
Watch Family Guy’s sketch on the SJW mob:
Watch John Stossel on SJW tactics:
Watch interview with Jake Shields about Berkley SJW protesters:
Watch SJW complete takeover at Evergreen college:
Watch Tim Pool discuss social justice has become the left’s “non-theistic religion”:
Doxing or doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information about an individual or organization. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites, hacking, and social engineering. The practice is considered legally as an invasion of privacy. Wikipedia
Swatting is the criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious law enforcement emergency, such as a bomb threat, murder, hostage situation, or other alleged incident. Wikipedia
Watch 10 streamers get swatted live:
any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.
a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Someone who identifies as a woman and was assigned female at birth is, for example, a cisgender woman. The term cisgender is the opposite of the word transgender. Related terms include cissexism and cisnormativity. Wikipedia
the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.
Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of one’s own culture. Wikipedia
the idea that there are only two genders; male and female.
a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.
legally speaking it is the incitement of violence or the act of violence against an identifiable group based on their religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation. Socially it has been extended to depict statements, opinions and symbols which form of prejudice motivated by some aspect of the identity, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology narrative. If a woman comes out in opposition to the Feminist narrative of patriarchy then she is dismissed as having internalized the sexism in a form of self hatred. If a muslim comes to the defense of free speech it is internalized racism in the form of self hatred. If a trans person objects to the push to affirm transition then that is internalized homophobia or transphobia specifically.
Varying from white ally, male ally, straight ally, etc. An ally is someone who aligns themselves with the same politics as a group within the culture war. The trans movement or other LBGTQ movements, the black lives matters movement or the Marxist academics, etc. You are an ally in the context that you are not a member of that community but serve to further that community’s agenda. You then support the group financially or otherwise and advocate for that group.
Watch PSA Sitch breakdown what the term Ally really means:
a Men’s Rights Activist. A new movement brought about to advocate for men’s issues and often hold meetings to discuss mens rights and to offer a counter narrative to feminist propaganda.
Watch Barbara Kay speak at CAFE conference:
Watch the trailer for the movie “The Red Pill”:
stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Men Going Their Own Way is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage and cohabitation. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. Wikipedia
The problem with this movement is they often converse in a bubble of confirmation bias and can result in them commenting or sharing content that can be very dehumanizing to women and does not encourage men to be better people. Some of the most cringey, disgusting videos you can find online are from the MGTOW community. The common theme that I could see is there is a distinct lack of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. All negative outcomes are blamed on women or society’s unfair expectations of men. Any legitimate points they have tends to get lost in their blaming of everyone else for their problems. And the refusal to improve their lives in such a way to embrace healthy relationships in any meaningful way. And this makes them just as negative and ideologically possessed as feminists who dehumanize and attack men.
Watch a MGTOW community member “Turd flinging monkey” on one of his sex toy review:
members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals. The term is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”. Wikipedia
Watch Paul Joseph Watson on the truth about incels:
According to Urban Dictionary’s top definition, a “thot is a hoe,” with the plural being “thotties.” Other definitions, however, reveal a little more about how the word itself came to be: “Thot” is actually an acronym that can either stand for “that hoe over there” or “thirsty hoe over there.” Generally Thots are women who use their sex appeal to gain views and likes on video their content creation shared either over youtube or twitch or tiktok. This can include sexual perk tier rewards for donators or subscribers. Some women who participate in camming may use social media platforms to advertise with the intent of luring customers to their official cam channels or an online store to purchase personalized content or products. It’s widely seen as a modern form of prostitution without direct participation in sex with the buyer.
Watch Paul Joseph Watson on THOT patrol:
Watch Philip Defranco on #ThotAudit:
On June 2nd, 2017, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “How to: Respect Women!”, in which he discusses how to Respect Women. Within two months, the video received upwards of 4.5 million views and 36,400 comments.
Urban dictionary describes wamen as a rare species of women that usually need more attention/respect than any other women also some of them are an idiot (sometimes ask a stupid question like “Is math related to science?”) “Nobody respect wamen better than pewdiepie himself!”
On July 10th, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “Never Say This to a Gamer,” in which he references the “wamen” joke several times (shown below, left). On July 13th, YouTuber Day by Dave uploaded a music remix of PewDiePie’s “How to: Respect Women” episode (shown below, right). Within three weeks, the video received more than 162,000 views and 840 comments.
a pejorative term meaning ” to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner”. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of “overconfidence and cluelessness”.Wikipedia
refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.
“There’s going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world,” Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.
Facebook will allow users to select between three pronouns: “him,” “her” or “their.”
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Female to Male
Male to Female
For many — though not all — people who are transgender, undergoing a name change can be an affirming step in the transition process. It can help a person who’s transgender and the people in their lives begin to see them as the gender they know themselves to be. It can also alleviate discomfort that may be associated with one’s old name.
Unfortunately, many people may struggle to adhere to a trans person’s new, affirmed name. In some situations, other people may refuse to acknowledge the change altogether. And in situations that involve government-issued identification, having a legal name that doesn’t align with one’s affirmed name can cause staff and personnel to inadvertently refer to a trans person by the wrong name.
This is what’s referred to as deadnaming.
Deadnaming occurs when someone, intentionally or not, refers to a person who’s transgender by the name they used before they transitioned. You may also hear it described as referring to someone by their “birth name” or their “given name.”
This can occur anywhere in a trans person’s life, from personal relationships to the classroom or workplace. (www.healthline.com)
a term used to refer to the phenomenon of “cancelling” or no longer morally, financially, and/or digitally supporting people—usually celebrities—events, art works such as songs, films or TV shows, or things that many have deemed unacceptable or problematic. It has been defined as “a call to boycott someone – usually a celebrity – who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion on social media”. Cancellation often arises in “response to a person’s comments or actions”.
The term is often used as a hashtag on social media, where it originated from Black Twitter, which is a cultural identity consisting of Black users on Twitter from around the world focused on issues of interest to the black community, particularly in the United States.The expression “cancelling”, in reference to cancel culture, has been used since 2015, with widespread usage of the expression beginning in 2018.
Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, described cancel culture as “an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.” Cancel culture has been defined as a “makeshift digital contract wherein people loosely agree not to support a person (especially economically) in order to somehow deprive them of their livelihood”. Jonah Engel Bromwich from The New York Timesdefines it as “total disinvestment in something (anything)”, often for “transgressing fans’ expectations”.
The impact of being cancelled ranges from “mostly conceptual or socially performative”, in cases such as the social media efforts at “cancellation” of Kanye West even during the same year as a number one Billboard album, to actually leading to cancellation of shows or activities, as in the cases of “Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Roseanne Barr“, who had their TV shows canceled due to public pressure.
Watch Joe Rogan speak with Sam Harris about cancel culture:
a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group. Wikipedia
a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. Wikipedia
a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. Wikipedia
a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior.
sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism.
trans-exclusionary radical feminism.
Believe (All) Women:
This is the feminist concept that women do not lie and that everyone should believe everything that all women say. This expression was popularized during the Jian Ghomeshi trial and from there went mainstream during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.
This is the act of challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The way it is used in the context of feminism is that if the accuser is a woman then the accusation is credible enough for the accused to be guilty until proven innocent. Usually used in cases of sexual assault accusations and was a term made most popular during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.
Watch Tim Pool discuss “credible” accusations:
to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.
the fear and distrust of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Xenophobia can involve perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup and can manifest itself in suspicion of the …Wikipedia
Cultural Marxism can be a controversial term—some assert there’s no such thing, and others use the term as a catch-all for anything they see as undermining society. In short, cultural Marxism is a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world. Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.
After World War I, some Marxist philosophers felt the need to modify their political strategy. Karl Marx generally saw culture as a secondary concern. His successors realized that culture was, in fact, critical to social change. When a society is willing to criticize its institutions, it is ready to make changes. The result of these ideas was the Frankfurt School, a generic term for Marxist philosophy focused on social criticism and bottom-up change. In particular, the Frankfurt School rejected the idea of absolute truth and promoted aggressive criticism of all aspects of life and society. Some early observers referred to this new approach as cultural Marxism to distinguish it from the earlier, classical forms of Marxism. More orthodox Marxists do not see cultural Marxism as Marxist at all. (GotQuestions.org)
Media report that cultural marxism is a term used by white supremacists as they refute the concept of race and gender being a social construct as a war against Darwinism. Darwinism being their argument to justify race purity in their arguments around ethno-nationalism.
Watch Jordan Peterson explain Postmodernism and Cultural marxism:
Watch Sargon of Akkad discuss cultural marxism trending on twitter:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. Wikipedia
Watch Now This World answer “what is socialism?”:
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy. Wikipedia
Watch Ben Shapiro Debunking 7 ‘democratic socialism’ myths:
at times also phrased cultural misappropriation, is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures. Wikipedia
Watch the Globe and Mail discuss what is cultural appropriation:
Watch what actual native americans think about cultural appropriation:
Watch Lauren Chen discuss cultural appropriation:
Watch Jordan Peterson and the idea of cultural appropriation:
(also formulated as “regressive liberals” and “regressive leftists”) is a neologism and political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of holding paradoxical, reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies. Other similar terms would be alt-left, radical-left, leftist, far-left, reactionary-left, identitarian-left, authoritarian-left, ill-liberals. Wikipedia
Watch Dave Rubin discuss the regressive left:
Watch David Pakman discuss regressive left:
In closing I would like to say that language does change. But there is organic evolution and then there is artificial injection of new terms for the purposes of manipulation and in either way the policing of any language is never a good idea. I am not a free speech absolutist in the sense that I agree with the current limitations on it. From incitement to violence and defamation, etc. But aside from that the idea censoring speech is nothing more than fascism. Our sovereignty begins with our individual self and extends to our property and that extends to our town and region and that extends to our province and country in the greater destiny of the world.
But when people hear those advocate for free speech there’s this weird assumption that advocates are apologizing for or forgiving reprehensible speech and/or behaviour. Obviously there are things people can say that is just indefensible. But I ask you this. Have you ever had a moment of weakness where you’ve found yourself as the one uttering indefensible things? So what do we do about you now? Do you have your right to speech revoked? Do we bar you from access to things online or elsewhere in the world? Even a murder conviction has an expiration date.
In law when someone is convicted of a crime they serve time in prison. This prison sentence represents 2 things. It represents punishment. But it also represents rehabilitation. Because the hope is that once you’ve served your time your second chance will result in you being a productive member of society whose contributions will total a net good for the world. That you will leave behind a legacy that contributes to the greater destiny of the world. The road to redemption is as important as the punishment for the prison sentence for the whole process to represent true justice. Are there those who are irredeemable? I think there actually is. No one wants to see Paul Bernardo back out on the streets. Should we have just killed him? That’s a capital punishment conversation for another day. So I guess we just leave him locked up forever? It may not be the best solution but it’s the best one I believe we have. And that’s at the heart of this whole issue. There isn’t a real solution to this whole hateful conduct stuff. No one wants to defend a neo-nazi’s speech but free speech is still the best of a bad situation.
This isn’t even to consider the NCR cases. Not criminally responsible. Like in January of 2011 when Richard Kachkar stole a snowplow and ran over and killed Sgt. Ryan Russell. Kachkar was found to be not criminally responsible as the incident came about from a “psychotic episode.” And today Kachkar is enjoying his freedom after his release and is doing ‘very well’. Despite, to my knowledge, never actually receiving a diagnosis for whatever his mental illness was exactly. And at the time of his parole hearing Russell’s wife was not even allowed to deliver a victim impact statement because it was actually argued successfully that since Kachkar had been found NCR then no actual crime had been committed. As if Sgt. Ryan Russell had simply died of some kind of oopsie like a fluke skiing incident. And his son, Noah, who was 2 at the time, will grow up without knowing his father and without memories of his father. Kachkar has never apologized to the Russell family. Is this justice?
Watch Sgt. Russell’s widow in a press conference after the NCR ruling:
Watch widow of Sgr. Ryan Russell learning Kachkar has been released:
Now I am in no position to make any determinations over this court case nor am I fit to discuss matters surrounding NCR. But I do feel it’s vital we have checks and balances to advocate for the mentally ill. I just feel we are far from a perfect model in how we handle each case by case situation. And this means there is no existing model that comes even close to how we handle something like online hate and hate incidents. But these people are not normal thinking, normal functioning people. And if we truly want to have a proper conversation around mental health we cannot be ignorant to the things that are uncomfortable to talk about.
As long as the conversation is dominated by forms of punishment we won’t get justice. There is no justice without rehabilitation. And in that there must be a road to redemption for wrong think and bad behaviour. The answer is never going to be to ban groups like the ethno-nationalists. In the age of social media everyone will always have a seat at the table. You can move the table but you’ll never take away their seat. So you want them at the table where we can see them. Because it’s when their conduct gets taken to the street is when we see events like Charlottesville and Christchurch.
Censorship is nothing more than wishful thinking. There’s a reason why Twitter’s attempts to regulate hateful conduct has ended up with them banning anyone who tweets things like “learn to code“. Because none of us are truly righteous. And to leave such power in the hands of any one person or institution to define what is “hate” or “hateful conduct” is only playing with fire. It’s impossible to draw clear boundaries around such a subjective concept. We are all flawed, tainted individuals ripe with vices and limitations.
For crying out loud, there’s a reason that when handed the power to regulate online hate the first person they went after was a comedian, Count Dankula, for a video of his pug giving the Nazi salute. And now the UK is seeing people actually having police come to their door for misgendering people on Twitter. No one person is qualified to make such judgements and so we must assume that anyone with that power will always be the worst person to hold that power. Because to assume any one of does not bear the capacity for the worst atrocities possible is to just be ignorant of 2000 years of history on the planet Earth.
It only shows a deep lack of knowledge and understanding around all of these issues so of course the only solution that comes to mind is “well, let’s just ban it.” What do you really know about vaccines? Or about the kind of paranoia that breed conspiratorial thinking? What do you really know about mental health? Or even about language for that matter? Do you think it ought to be left up to YOU to decide what happens with Richard Kachkar? So why do you think you have any right to decide how we handle any of these complex problems?
The internet did not CREATE these people, it just revealed them to us. Violent crimes have not increased over time the media just reports on them more now. This phenomena is, I think, comparable to how everyone from every cleek and tribe coming together to all the same social medias and simply seeing more things they wouldn’t normally be looking for. And instead of simply ignoring the content it’s far more fun to engage in the road rage style outrage. Outrage is fun. I doubt it’s even really about the content itself. So why do we even humour these mobs with reactions? How are they not the very trolls they accuse everyone else of being?
If you’re anything like me you’re an armchair expert at best. Forming mobs to lobby billion dollar corporations to censor and ban public access and discourse is never going to be the answer to anything. EVER. And in the great sweeping movement to ban wrongthink you will inevitably find yourself being visited by the gestapo and by then there will be no one left to speak for you. If social media is a public utility then to ban or censor someone is the equivalent to cutting off their access to potable water and heat.
10 years ago I would’ve called that claim bullshit but in today’s world where the internet tracks and records everything you do and everywhere you go then the implications that come with banning or censoring a person are far greater reaching than simple access to websites. It’s directly tied to our banking, our credit, our reputation, our shopping, our careers, our networking, our research, our privacy and this can even affect our assets. Just throw in some travel restrictions and how is this not the social credit system China has rolled out?
Watch Tim Pool cover a journalist facing hate crime for misgendering:
This is no longer the days of logging off. Even in the real world we are never truly logged off. If it’s not the watch on our wrist uploading our location to the cloud, it’s the GPS in our phones tracking our every move. If it’s not the smart phone listening to everything we say then it’s our various home assistants. If nothing else it’s the security footage at every place we go, it’s the banks keeping track of our credit and spending behaviors, it’s the roomba uploading the schematics of our home to the cloud. It’s google and facebook storing all our search history and website activity.
So how is banning not an act of locking that person up and throwing away the key? It’s actually got farther reaching effects than actual house arrest. And when the internet has deemed you unfit to exist, where is the appeal process? These are not government bodies or police institutions or religious entities. These are billion dollar silicon valley corporations and we’re actually asking them to act as judge, jury and executioner? Really? Every time someone calls for censorship they’re actually calling for the dystopia. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
“Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
Justin Trudeau holding a Ford Nation rally, I mean, a press conference on climate change while the SNC-Lavalin situation unfolds, in a desperate attempt to change the conversation. You know, because it’s 2019.
Watch what you need to know about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal:
Because there is so much here I won’t be offering my comment on the media I share. I will simply post events and reactions and leave my conclusions for later posts. This will clearly go into the election so I’m going to just treat this as a chronology which I will keep up to date. So feel free to revisit as time goes on to catch up on what’s new as I sift through all the clutter of clickbait and mainstream promotion which is causing a lot of fog and confusion around these important issues. Thanks!
The following is a sequence of events from the initial SNC-Lavalin charges in 2015 to our current day situation surrounding Jody Wilson-Raybould:
The RCMP lays corruption and fraud charges against Montreal-based engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin, over allegations it used bribery to get government business in Libya. SNC-Lavalin says the charges are without merit and stem from “alleged reprehensible deeds by former employees who left the company long ago.” A conviction would bar the company from bidding on Canadian government business, potentially devastating it.
The charges included:
A statement from the RCMP said it had charged SNC-Lavalin, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc., and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. with offering $47.7 million in bribes to Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011.
It also charged the three companies with defrauding Libya of $129.8 million over the same time period. (CanadianLawyerMag.com)
Watch Global News video on the SNC/Libya connection:
The Liberals win a federal election, taking power from the Conservatives. Two weeks later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau names Jody Wilson-Raybould minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. She is the first Indigenous person to hold the post, which combines duties as a politician (heading the Department of Justice) and a legal official (overseeing prosecutions).
Watch CBC coverage of the 2015 federal election:
The Liberals table a budget bill that includes a change to the Criminal Code allowing “remediation agreements,” plea-bargain-like deals between prosecutors and accused corporations in which they can avoid criminal proceedings by making reparations for previous bad behaviour. SNC-Lavalin had lobbied for such a provision in Canadian law.
Watch Pierre Poilievre connect the remediation agreement within the budget bill to the Globe and Mail article alleging the PMO pressured the former Attorney General:
Although the bill has yet to pass, SNC-Lavalin contacts Public Prosecution Service lawyers to ensure they have all relevant information for a possible invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement. During the next three months, in response to requests from prosecutors, SNC-Lavalin provides detailed information it sees as making a strong case for an agreement.
The prosecution service tells SNC-Lavalin in writing it will not invite the firm to negotiate a remediation agreement.
Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould discuss the SNC-Lavalin file. As attorney general, Wilson-Raybould could overrule the prosecution service, directing it to negotiate an agreement with the company. Trudeau later says that Wilson-Raybould asked him if he planned to tell her what to do concerning the prosecution — a conversation that he says ended with him telling her any decision was hers alone.
SNC-Lavalin representatives meet with Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick (Canada’s most senior civil servant) and Finance Minister Bill Morneau to discuss issues including “justice and law enforcement.”
The remediation-agreement provisions come into legal force.
The director of prosecutions confirms again in writing that she will not invite SNC-Lavalin to negotiate a remediation agreement, a decision the company challenges in Federal Court. That challenge is ongoing.
SNC-Lavalin issues a news release saying it strongly disagrees with the director of prosecutions’ position and remains open and committed to negotiating a remediation agreement. SNC-Lavalin shares fall nearly 14 per cent, closing at $44.86 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That’s the lowest close since March 2, 2016.
SNC-Lavalin meets with Elder Marques, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, to discuss “justice and law enforcement.”
Nov. 5 and 19
SNC-Lavalin meets with Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, to discuss “justice and law enforcement.”
According to the Prime Minister’s Office, Wilson-Raybould raises the remediation case with Gerald Butts, the prime minister’s principal secretary, and he tells her to talk to Wernick, the Privy Council clerk.
Trudeau shuffles his cabinet after the resignation of Treasury Board president Scott Brison. Wilson-Raybould is moved from Justice to Veterans Affairs, widely seen as a demotion. David Lametti, a Montreal MP and former law professor, becomes justice minister. Wilson-Raybould posts a long letter outlining her record as justice minister and noting a great deal of work remains to be done toward reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.
Citing unnamed sources, the Globe and Mail newspaper reports that Trudeau’s aides attempted to press Wilson-Raybould, while attorney general, to intervene in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and that exasperation with her lack of co-operation was one reason for shuffling her out of the justice portfolio. Trudeau denies any impropriety. Citing solicitor-client privilege, Wilson-Raybould refuses to speak about dealings she had on the case when she was attorney general.
Watch Brian Lilley cover Trudeau’s denial of justice interference:
Watch Trudeau react to the globe and mail article:
Watch Evan Solomon featuring Robert Fife’s reaction to Trudeau’s accusation of the Globe and Mail article being false.
Federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion says he’s beginning an investigation. At a public appearance in Vancouver, Trudeau says he’s spoken to Wilson-Raybould and confirmed with her that he said any decision on the SNC-Lavalin prosecution was entirely hers. Her continued presence in his cabinet speaks for itself, he says.
Wilson-Raybould resigns as veterans-affairs minister and says she’s hired former Supreme Court justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on the limits of solicitor-client privilege. Trudeau says he’s surprised and disappointed that Wilson-Raybould has quit, and that if she felt undue pressure in her role as attorney general, she had a duty to report it to him.
Watch Can Trudeau waive solicitor-client privilege in SNC-Lavalin affair:
Watch Justin Trudeau react to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation:
(OR) Watch Ezra Levant’s breakdown of Trudeau’s reaction:
Watch Don Martin’s reaction to Wilson-Raybould’s resignation:
The House of Commons justice committee debates its own probe of the issue. Liberals use their majority to call one closed-door meeting and hear from senior officials (Lametti as justice minister, the top bureaucrat in his department, and the clerk of the Privy Council) who can talk about the tension between the minister of justice’s duties as a politician and his or her responsibilities as attorney general of Canada. The Liberals say this is a first step in a cautious investigation, but the opposition calls it a coverup. Behind the scenes liberals engaged in a ‘whisper’ smear campaign against Jody Wilson-Raybould. Although few media outlets report on this beyond Trudeau’s public apology for not doing more to prevent the high school-like bullying of Wilson-Raybould.
Watch Opposition leader Andrew Scheer referring to the closed-door meeting as proof of a cover up:
The co-authors on the CBC opinion piece “From star Liberal MP to difficult and incompetent? Really?”
Joyce Green, professor of Political Science (University of Regina)
Gina Starblanket, assistant professor of Political Science (University of Calgary)
Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, associate professor of Political Science (University of Victoria)
Renae Watchman, associate professor of English and Indigenous Studies (Mount Royal University)
Sarah Hunt, assistant professor of First Nations and Indigenous Studies, and Geography (University of British Columbia)
Lianne Marie Leda Charlie, instructor (Yukon College)
Christine O’Bonsawin, associate professor of History (University of Victoria)
waaseyaa’sin Christine Sy, assistant professor of Gender Studies (University of Victoria)
Jeff Corntassel, associate professor of Indigenous Studies (University of Victoria)
Patricia M. Barkaskas, instructor at Peter A. Allard School of Law (University of British Columbia)
Dallas Hunt, lecturer in Native Studies (University of Manitoba)
Mary-Jane McCallum, professor of History (University of Winnipeg)
Damien Lee, assistant professor of Sociology (Ryerson University)
Chelsea Gabel, assistant professor of Social Sciences (McMaster University)
Tasha Hubbard, associate professor of Native Studies (University of Alberta)
Sarah Nickel, assistant professor of Indigenous Studies (University of Saskatchewan)
Robyn Bourgeois, assistant professor od Women’s and Gender Studies (Brock University)
Watch Conservatives demand apology from B.C. Liberal MP for sexist comment in response to Raybould’s testimony:
Wilson-Raybould stuns observers by attending a meeting of the very cabinet from which she had resigned a week earlier. Trudeau says she had asked to speak there and was invited to do so but cabinet confidentiality means nothing can be revealed about why or what was said. After the meeting, Wilson-Raybould says she is still talking to her lawyer about what she can and can’t say publicly.
Watch Power & Politics covering question period to Butts resignation and cabinet meeting with Wilson-Raybould despite her no longer being a member of the cabinet:
Trudeau says that while an airing of the facts is needed, he is confident the examinations underway by the ethics commissioner and the justice committee will provide it. The Liberals use their House of Commons majority to defeat an opposition motion calling for a public inquiry into allegations the Prime Minister’s Office pressured Wilson-Raybould.
Watch City News cover liberals defeating the motion for a public inquiry:
Wernick launches a vigorous defence of the government’s handling of the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, bluntly declaring allegations of political interference to be false and even defamatory. The Privy Council clerk also challenges Wilson-Raybould’s assertion that solicitor-client privilege prevents her from responding to allegations.
Watch the question period in house of commons held before Wernick’s testimony:
Watch the full testimony and questioning of Michael Wernick before the justice committee:
Watch Power and Politics analyze Wernick’s testimony before the justice committee with several panelists and commentators:
Watch CTV’s Question Period with Evan Solomon react to Wernick’s testimony:
Justin Trudeau travels to Nova Scotia to apologize for alleged racial profiling.
Watch CBC coverage of Trudeau speaking with two black Nova Scotians who claim they were racially profiled while visiting parliament hill:
Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on the SNC-Lavalin situation:
Trudeau partly waives both solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality for his former attorney general, paving the way for Wilson-Raybould to tell her side of the SNC-Lavalin saga to the justice committee and ethics commissioner. The order specifically notes, however, that she cannot speak publicly about communication she had with Kathleen Roussel, the director of public prosecutions.
Watch CBC’s Vassy Kapelos breakdown the details surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s upcoming testimony before the justice committee:
Wilson-Raybould tells the justice committee she came under “consistent and sustained” pressure — including veiled threats — from the PMO, the Privy Council Office and Morneau’s office to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Trudeau rejects her characterization of events. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer calls on Trudeau to resign. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh calls for a public inquiry.
Watch question period in house of commons before Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Jody Wilson-Raybould testify and take questions before the justice committee:
Watch Justin Trudeau react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Justice Committee members react to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Power and Politics breakdown Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, featuring David McLaughlin (former chief of staff for David Mulroney), Irwin Cotler (former attorney general) and Peter MacKay (former attorney general):
Watch Evan Solomon table a panel discussion of Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond react to Wilson-Raybould testimony:
Watch Indigenous Services react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Bob Fife commentary on the fallout of Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Christie Blatchford react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:
Watch Jody Wilson-Raybould’s father react to her testimony:
Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on SNC-Lavalin and Trudeau’s broken brand:
Butts asks to testify before the justice committee while Trudeau holds press conference to declare Canada will join the Lunar Gateway moon mission.
Watch Question Period in the House of Commons in wake of SNC-Lavalin affair:
Trudeau makes longtime MP Lawrence MacAulay his new veterans-affairs minister. Marie-Claude Bibeau replaces MacAulay as agriculture minister and Gender Equality Minister Maryam Monsef takes on the additional portfolio of international development. All three express support for Trudeau.
Watch question period:
Jody Wilson-Raybould declares she will run as Liberal in fall federal election for the Vancouver Granville riding.
Watch CBC coverage on Jody Wilson-Raybould’s decision to run as Liberal:
Philpott quits cabinet, saying she has lost confidence in the way the government has dealt with the ongoing affair and citing her obligation to defend the cabinet as long as she is a part of it. Trudeau names Carla Qualtrough interim Treasury Board president. While attending a climate change rally in Toronto amid the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Trudeau says the ongoing affair “has generated an important discussion” about how ministers, staff and officials conduct themselves. “Concerns of this nature,” he says, “must be taken very seriously and I can assure you that I am.”
Watch who is Jane Philpott?
Watch Trudeau’s reaction to Philpott’s resignation:
Watch Power Play speak with Bob Fife on Philpott’s resignation:
Watch Green party leader Elizabeth May react to Wilson-Raybould and Philpott:
Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, reacts to Philpott resignation:
Butts tells the justice committee that Wilson-Raybould never complained about improper pressure to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin until Trudeau decided to move her out of her coveted cabinet role as justice minister and attorney general. Wernick disputes parts of her testimony as well. Drouin provides more details about the timeline.
Watch Bob Fife (Globe and Mail) and Tonda MacCharles (The Toronto Star) speculate on Gerald Butts upcoming testimony:
Watch Power and Politics coverage of Butts’ full testimony and questioning complete with member reactions and commentator reaction:
Watch Andrew Scheer react to Butts’ testimony:
Watch former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond react to Butts’ testimony:
Watch Ezra Levant’s commentary on Butts’ testimony:
Watch Andrew Scheer discuss the latest in the SNC-Lavalin affair:
Watch Evan Solomon hold a week in review panel discussion around the SNC scandal:
Watch Evan Solomon hold panel on calling back Jody Wilson-Raybould with privilege lifted:
In 1999, Canada signed on to a global anti-bribery convention overseen by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD’s working group on bribery announced on March 11 that it is concerned by the SNC allegations and would monitor the outcome of the various investigations.
Watch Power & Politics discuss OECD ‘concerned’ about SNC-Lavalin affair:
The Liberal-dominated House of Commons justice committee shut down opposition parties’ attempt on Wednesday to recall former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould for further testimony about the pressure exerted on her to abandon the fraud and bribery prosecution of engineering and construction giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.
Half an hour into an emergency meeting of the justice committee, Liberal MPs used their majority to adjourn without holding a vote on whether to recall Ms. Wilson-Raybould, drawing cries of “shame,” “despicable” and “cover-up” from opposition MPs.
Watch Opposition proclaim “cover up” while Liberal majority shuts down emergency meeting:
Watch CBC table panel discussion around SNC-Lavalin situation:
Watch Power & Politics panel Liberals shut down an emergency meeting:
Watch CBC hold SNC-Lavalin Q&A:
Watch Andrew Scheer allege a Liberal cover up around the SNC-Lavalin scandal:
Watch MPs react to the Liberal shutdown of the emergency meeting:
Watch Andrew Lawton discuss the Liberal shutdown of the emergency meeting:
Watch David Menzies drive around Ottawa with the JailTrudeau.com truck and speak with the public about their approval on Trudeau:
Watch highlights in question period regarding the budget:
Michael Wernick attends a swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Friday, March 1, 2019. He announced plans to step down as clerk of the Privy Council less than a month later. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
Former deputy prime minister, justice minister and attorney general Anne McLellan has been tasked with examining the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the dual role of justice minister and attorney general. She’s due to give Mr. Trudeau her findings by June 30.
Watch highlights from question period:
Watch Tom Mulcair react to Michael Wernick resignation:
Watch Adrian Batra and Lorrie Goldstein react to the cabinet shuffle:
Watch Power & Politics cover cabinet shuffle:
Watch Leo Knight discuss Anne McLellan appointment:
Watch Michelle Rempel discuss Anne McLellan appointment:
Watch CTV covering Michael wernick retirement:
Watch Tom Mulcair on his take over the Michael Wernick retirement:
Following five weeks and 13 hours of testimony, behind closed doors Tuesday, The Parliamentary Justice Committee has ended its study on the SNC-Lavalin issue without the further testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould that opposition MPs had demanded. Citing that the committee has spent enough time on the matter and needs to move on. That the overall coverage on the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould situation was “unprecedented”. Although during the closed door meeting Liberals released confidential documents to media which were tweeted out to the public. Later on that day the Liberal government released their federal budget for 2019.
Watch Opposition halt the meeting to confront to confront the media about reporting on confidential documents:
MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes quits the Liberal Caucus.
Watch Don Martin discuss Mp Caesar-Chavannes resignation:
Macleans publishes an interview with Jane Philpott where she claims “there’s much more to the story that needs to be told”. Also MPs worked through the night to get through 257 separate confidence votes needed thanks to a Conservative filibuster 30-hour voting marathon in the House of Commons over the SNC-Lavalin affair introduced as a protest against the government shutting down its investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair.
Opposition attempts to open new SNC-Lavalin probe with ethics committee and Liberals once again use their majority to vote down the motion. Jody Wilson-Raybould submits a written statement to the Justice Chair for further review in a plea to allow a second testimony and to reopen the SNC-Lavalin probe.
Watch CityNews report on Wilson-Raybould Submits documents to ethics committee:
A confidential document sent to the Liberal Party of Canada in 2016, and obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada, reveals how top officials at SNC-Lavalin were named in a scheme to illegally influence Canadian elections.
Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said he was worried for weeks after breaking the SNC-Lavalin story that has rocked the Liberal government, fearing that former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould would refute his reporting. He spoke to Power & Politics host Vassy Kapelos.
Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, former Liberal cabinet ministers who resigned over the Liberal government’s SNC-Lavalin controversy, say they will make announcements Monday about their political futures.
Watch Power & Politics discuss political future for Philpott and Wilson-Raybould:
There is enough evidence against SNC-Lavalin for it to be tried on fraud and bribery charges, a Quebec Court judge has ruled. The engineering giant spent months lobbying Ottawa to avoid a trial, and the case is at the centre of an upheaval for the Trudeau government.
Jody Wilson-Raybould plays a recording of Michael Wernick to the justice committee in an appeal to reopen the SNC probe. The Liberal majority voted down the reopening of the SNC probe despite the new evidence. The media reports on suspicion over Wilson-Raybould’s judgement in conducting an illegal recording, given her status as a lawyer. They do not discuss the things disclosed by Wernick throughout the call which verified all of her testimony and disproved all claims by Trudeau through his various press conferences since the time of the Globe and Mail article. The media narrative then shifts to questions of whether or not Wilson-Raybould and Philpott hurt the Liberal party’s chances of getting re-elected.
Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott sit down with Evan Solomon on running as independents in the upcoming Federal election:
Watch True North debunk Trudeau’s justification for interference:
The following TVO episode serves as a perfect example of the toxic nature of hyper partisanship. The reason why people use terms like “shill media” is because mainstream media which is supposed to be held to a standard and with at least SOME expectation of non-partisan reporting and reasoned analysis. This episode of the agenda is so disgusting that I do not see how the show can continue with any credibility. As far as I’m concerned I will now be referencing TVO as Canada’s Liberal equivalent to Fox news.
Greg Sorbara, former ontario liberal finance minister actually states, with regard to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, that he ‘can’t see the mischief”. And regarding Ms. Wilson-Raybould “if you don’t like being under undue pressure, don’t take a cabinet seat.” He is well within his right to state such disgusting opinions but having gone almost completely unchallenged and then by Paikin shifting the conversation to the OPP commissioner situation surrounding Doug Ford (where it isn’t a scandal or illegal or immoral to appoint friends with the OPP commissioner, as McGuinty did before him, openly calling his OPP chief his “great friend”) really shows the true hyper-partisan bias of TVO and their producers.
If you are one of these people who discredit Rebel Media as being “stunt journalism” then you must watch this and understand that media plays a role in the discourse of the country. and TVO has made it clear that their role is to influence the province to develop a liberal bias by refusing to hold Liberals to anywhere near the same standard as conservatives. In a time when the province voted overwhelmingly for a conservative government, TVO no longer speaks on behalf of the province. From now on I will be referring to TVO as I refer to CBC, as activist based narrative reporting. TVO should be ashamed to ruin their reputation over cheap partisan bias. It’s a damn shame and I hope Paikin is losing sleep at night for the reputation he’s dragging through the hyper partisan swampy mud. This isn’t news, it’s propaganda and I am only sharing this so you can see exactly what that looks like:
I’ve held off on talking about this because even I needed time to let my emotions settle before I could speak to this with clarity. When I heard about the Christchurch shooting I felt sick. Last I heard it was 49 dead. This guy streamed video footage of the attack. and It was like watching a nightmare. These ppl were at their most vulnerable, in their place of worship. they were at his mercy and he showed none. The depth of hell your soul has to be to be able to commit those actions, is almost beyond comprehension.
Each one of those individuals represent much more than just 1 person dead. they represent a (now broken) family, extended family, a job and all the colleagues who worked with them, a circle of friends and a regular patron to all the local shopkeepers. Each life lost will have a ripple effect through all of Christchurch and by extension of ever person it affects, it will ripple out and affect all of new zealand. And every other country around the commonwealth is looking at this knowing it could have just as easily been any one of us, at any one of our own communities. I don’t even know how a community heals from such hell. It’s so bad I don’t even know if it can. But I hope it does. These actions are so insane and so malevolent it’s like looking at the devil himself.
To make matters worse, it’s so discouraging to see some media reacting to this in a way that I believe this shooter absolutely intended for them to react and baited them into it. As if he got to write the headlines himself. And so this is what’s prompting me to post about this at all. Look. It’s easy to point fingers at others to blame all the various roles you may believe others played in this tragedy. It’s easy to point fingers because we desperately want to make sense out of something that will never make sense. It’s hard to accept something that’s unacceptable. But we don’t have a choice.
The actions of this man are no one’s fault but his own. No one in their right mind would ever, ever, EVER want something like this to ever happen. Literally, the ppl on social media who are spreading the video and spouting racist rhetoric and pushing for civil unrest, these people are literally mentally ill. Not to say they do not bear any responsibility for their actions, I’m saying these are not normal people. They are just as ideologically possessed by extremism as is this insane shooter. I shouldn’t even need to start this post by stating my position on the shooting. But I do need to. because everytime someone calls for calm and peace in moments like this, people jump to assume it’s like you’re apologizing for what happened. I’m saying this guy WANTS us to be fighting with one another. So let’s not give him what he wants. This whole event, beyond the tragedy it was, was clearly a recruiting attempt. And if he can’t win people over to ethno-nationalism by agreeing with ideology then he’ll force you into their camp when everyone else around you pushes you into it.
Watch Tim Pool react to Christchurch:
Watch Lauren Chen react to Christchurch:
There’s a reason this guy stuffed his car with a mass of legal weapons. There’s a reason why he wrote on those guns all those references to other mass shooters and historical battles against muslims. And why his weapon of choice was the already controversial AR-15. Because he wants everyone who’s pro gun control to absolutely lose their shit out of everyone who’s anti-gun control. regardless who’s right or wrong on the gun control issue, if this guy didn’t use guns he would’ve used bombs, if not bombs he would’ve used knives, if not knives he would’ve used chemicals. These murders happened because this nut job chose to murder these people. There is no blanket solution to this problem that would, 1, ever prevent people like this from committing these crimes and, 2, would ever work for everyone.
There’s a reason why this guy chose to give Pewdiepie and Candice Owens and Trump shout outs. He’s trying to sever the political spectrum. He wants to eliminate all fence sitters and moderates and have EVERYONE shouting at each other. He literally wants to spark a civil war. Just like the shooter in Georgia, in Pittsburgh, in Quebec, etc. Pewdiepie is not political. He never has been. But he’s anti-political in a culture war. So he’s always vilified as “problematic” as is so many others who refuse to join the mobs. He also has MILLIONS of people who follow him and so for the media to go after pewdiepie as if he played ANY role in this, you also vilify everyone who follows him. You polarize millions of people.
And we all move ever closer to the edge of the cliff. Candice Owens is nothing more than a political contrarian. She doesn’t even make good arguments. But she represents a political divide in the american black community. Fence sitters. And even though Trump inappropriately nodded to white supremacists during the election, that doesn’t at all mean he wants anything like this to happen. I’m all for holding Trump accountable but to suggest he had anything to do with this horrific action, that’s irresponsible. and it only serves to tribalize people to push this narrative that conservatives are evil. Trump clearly does not speak for all conservatives. For fuck sakes he’s just a reality TV hack. So many conservatives came out against him during the election. And there is a huge difference between american conservatives and canadian conservatives and british conservatives, etc etc.
Watch Ben Shapiro react to Jordan Peterson’s New Zealand book banning:
Watch Gad Saad react to Cambridge University banning Jordan Peterson:
this shooter was not a conservative. despite what the media is telling us. he is an ethno-nationalist. A REAL white supremacist. he condemns conservatism in his manifesto. so to shift the conversation to conservatives is not only inaccurate but it’s literally using this event for your own political activism. The new zealand prime minister did the right thing to call this individual an extremist with an extremist ideology. Rather than attempt to generalize, she focussed on this individual as solely responsible for these actions. It identifies that there is no political home for actions or beliefs like these. And the true issue at hand is exactly extremist ideology. which can occur in any form. So it must be condemned.
I just don’t like the way we use “far-right” or “far-left” terminology because they’re so vague. No one on any spectrum of the “right” would ever approve of anything like this. this guy is a neo nazi. Call it for what it is. But unfortunately because Nazi is the new hip term to qualify ANYONE with a disagreeable opinion, it’s a term that virtually means nothing anymore. so we are reduced to more generalized terms like “far-right”. which isn’t a fraction as effective at communicating exactly what we are talking about. Especially considering the way the media reports everyone on social media with a conservative position as “far-right”.
Tommy Robinson has never been convicted of a hate crime. But now we have the conflation between these two individuals. It’s a language designed to divide and polarize. When one is a political activist and the other is a terrorist. There couldn’t be a bigger difference between the two yet they are both categorized together as “far-right”. and this guy absolutely was a terrorist. he absolutely did aim to terrorize not just this community but the world. and he has succeeded in doing so. it’s just sad to see the media run with this to give his actions round the clock coverage. Like he’s some kind of celebrity.
In terms of further pushes to “deplatform” and ban people on social media, we need to be really careful here. Sure we can just unperson everyone who disagrees with us and we will feel better but this is not like putting an individual in the corner with a dunce cap for 5 minutes and welcoming them back when they’ve learned why they were put there. There absolutely is a culture war waging and as long as it remains online then we will likely be able to avoid an all out civil war. But people need to have a seat at the table to speak freely. We’ve seen the fallout from banning attempts against people like faith goldy and alex jones and it hasn’t done ANYTHING but legitimize their claims and grown their base. And forced them underground and to cater to more hysterical rhetoric because it’s paranoid individuals who give them the most support. Why would they care about being non-partisan or dialing back their inflammatory statements when everyone else seeks to condemn them? so their communications become more polarizing and more contentious to the paranoid community they speak to.
during the last city election Faith Goldy ran for mayor. She was banned from all speaking events, from all media including TVO who dedicated an episode of the agenda to engage with fringe mayoral candidates. Even Bell media refused to air her campaign ad which did not break any laws and despite the fact she was a legitamate registered candidate. There wasn’t anything even controversial in the ad, let alone anything which was in conflict with any standards. So she attempted to sue Bell media and a partisan judge refused to hear the case. After it was thrown out Bell media went after her for $50 000 to cover their lawyer fees. At least this is the story according to Faith, the media won’t even talk about it to be able to verify her account of events. And that’s really the problem here. While big media like Bell virtue signal and liberal hosts like John Moore of newstalk1010 get off on grand standing about how moral they are to condemn her and her views, Faith is getting to run with whatever narrative she wants. They’re not even realizing that she’s become so notorious BECAUSE OF THEM that despite the fact they literally refuse to utter her name while talking about her, EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. And you don’t see a problem there?
Watch #boycottbell video:
Others may feel good about themselves to call her an idiot but she’s actually not. She knew she would never become mayor. That was never really an option, nor do I believe that’s something she ever really wanted. Her shtick now is to sow the seeds of distrust within the mainstream institutions. That’s how she gains more followers. and what better way to force the media’s hand to reveal their bias by running for mayor and watching the partisans literally violate rules because their partisan ideology is more important than journalistic integrity. And they were more than happy to oblige. And when she lost, their gloating didn’t fool anyone. She came in 3rd place, beating out ALL the other fringe candidates with something like 25 000 votes. Without ANY promotion. Without the main streams precious “platform”. If she HAD received invites to debates and events and if Bell media HAD run her ads, she potentially could’ve ended up around the vote count that Olivia Chow received when she finished the last election in 3rd place. Meaning that despite all the attempts to unperson Faith Goldy, despite all the “justified” banning and deplatforming, Faith Goldy today is comparatively as influential as Olivia Chow. Who is a legend in her community.
We no longer live in a time when someone does something wrong in the media, they get fired, and they’re reduced to nothing as a result. We can no longer end people’s careers over their mistakes. Because of the internet and social media, they will ALWAYS find a seat at the table. If they don’t want to, they will never go away. And no amount of money can prevent someone streaming from their basement to simply talk to a webcam. They will always be able to communicate to the entire world. And we need to actually deal with that. not get our rocks off on how good it feels to punish them. If there is NO road to redemption, these attempts to unperson will ONLY radicalize them and everyone else around them. While trust in the institutions decline ever more. So who’s really winning that battle? Newstalk1010 used to be THE VOICE OF THE GTA. Now it’s just another channel on just another app on the app store. just another folder in the portfolio of Bell media, which owns majority of news outlets now. While the rest of the world says “what’s a bell media?” you tell me, who’s winning that war?
It was Faith Goldy who promoted this idea that Kristyn Wong-Tam was in some conflict of interest for owning 28 condos within her ward and that she was using her role as councillor to benefit from and that she’s also secretly a real estate agent or something like that. Well apparently it’s all made up. But that rumour made the rounds everywhere in Toronto. Including at Newstalk 1010 HQ where the rumours were shared with even the show hosts and received as credible. until Wong-Tam had to come out strongly denouncing the claims in (I think) Now magazine. Guess why? Because arrogant partisans refuse to have Goldy on to challenge her claims or to bother fact checking anything she does so the conversation goes on without them.
And though Wong-Tam won her riding, what if it had done enough damage to cost her the election? John Moore can mock and sneer at Faith Goldy while refusing to use her name, as if he’s leading the conversation? We all know who you’re talking about John Moore. And one day you’ll wake up to the sad reality that now she has more influence than you, Mr. morning talk show host of 20+ years in the industry. It’s the majority of people who don’t know YOUR name. So go ahead, continue your deplatforming. Will you accept any responsibility when the fallout of this partisanship comes to a boiling point? No, it’s never your fault, is it? Your actions never have consequences, like hers. Aren’t we all just so virtuous? Wake the fuck up.
So if you haven’t assumed what my position is by now on censorship, yeah, it doesn’t work. It actually has the opposite effect. Twitter bans Megan Murphy for misgendering. Now the entire world is talking about Megan Murphy. Even if we don’t like what people have to say, even if what they say is racist, bigoted, misogynist, hateful, if someone says something reprehensible, so what? What do you want? Would you feel better to call them an idiot? Go ahead. You’re allowed. The whole point of the marketplace of ideas allows bad ideas to be criticised. Tell all your friends about it. Make fun of the stupid comments together over pizza or something.
Social media is more than just a bunch of corporations. It’s the home where public discourse takes place. It’s where the world goes to network. It’s the publication where we receive our news. It’s the global conversation where we all take part. And our online avatars make it easy to diminish the importance of our role in it. But to ban someone truly is to remove them from society. To exile someone from the rest of the world with no road to redemption or path to move forward you are forcing someone to take their potentially dangerous ideas offline and out onto the street. Where the way to ratio someone with dislikes comes in the form of physical assault. And the only thing preventing this insane culture war from breaking out to a full blown civil war IS the fact we can contend with each other civilly online. Where when we engage in road rage there, the most we can do is report one another. Outside in the real world the worst we can do to each other is Christchurch. So we need to be very fucking careful how we proceed from here.
My advice to you is this:
1. Focus on you and your life. Do what’s right for YOU. Do what you need to improve YOUR life. Clean your home. Go cook an awesome dinner. Find someone close to you in your life and give them a big hug. because we never know just how long our time is on this planet. Despite their differences from you, give that person a big hug and thank them for being a part of your life. And tell the people you love that you love them.
2. Be there for your family. After your big hug play a game together. Go on a road trip. Have dinner together. Go see a movie. Anything to celebrate your relationship and to improve your ties with them. Strengthen your family and/or your closest friends.
3. Do right by your community. Get offline and go volunteer somewhere. Local church or donation centre. Maybe city hall has some public event about to happen and they need someone to help make it happen. Maybe become a part of a local park conservatory group. Or just go pick up the trash from the side of the road outside your neighbourhood or across the street at a local school or park. Invest in the place you call home. Benefit from the meaning and purpose that comes from bearing responsibilities. Be grateful for the place you call home and for the pillow where you rest your head.
The only answer to hate is love. Mob justice and tribalism is not love. and as much as we’d love to, you cannot transfer suffering. You can only create more of it. You cannot make sense out of what happened in Christchurch. Don’t let the shooter get what he wanted. Love your neighbour, despite their differences. All their differences. Only then will we tilt the world away from hell. Go find someone you love and give them a big hug.
Terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They’re trying to mobilize others to their cause. I mean, every specialist on terrorism knows that. – Noam Chomsky
While society burns and marxism seeks to rewrite history we always hear the weak minded possessed by postmodern ideologies talk about how our favourite movies weren’t what they appeared to be. Sleeping beauty wasn’t about a couple’s love breaking a curse, it was about patriarchal rape culture because Prince Phillip never had consent before kissing the unconscious Princess Aurora. Cinderella wasn’t a story about a low class, unfortunate woman who discovers her unique value despite her cruel stepmother and ends up with a handsome prince because every girl, no matter her flaws, deserves to be happy. No, it was about a weak willed woman who was ignorant of her racial privilege and who had no value as a damsel in distress because she needed a big strong man to save her when clearly she could’ve done it all herself and then become the CEO of IBM if she really wanted to. Let’s just ignore the fact this dude didn’t even have a fucking NAME and just chalk this one up to patriarchy all the same, mmk?
WELL NO MORE! You no longer get to pick and choose which movies you’re going to “deconstruct” to suit YOUR ideological narratives of oppressed versus oppressors. I’m going to apply YOUR OWN LOGIC to YOUR favourite movies and see how YOU like it. See how supportive you are in pushing the bullshit narrative you KNOW is bullshit after you’ve had YOUR nostalgic memories shit on. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for critical thinking but let’s not bullshit each other here. Marxism, post-modernism and intersectionality is toxic as fuck and there’s no coincidence that by viewing life through such “lenses” reveals problematic situations. BECAUSE EVERY-FUCKING-THING IN THIS LIVING WORLD IS A PROBLEM ACCORDING TO DECONSTRUCTIONISTS. So now sit down with a tub of stale, cold popcorn and allow me to shit all over YOUR favourite movies. You disengenuous mother fuckers.
1. Indiana Jones
Thought you were watching a movie about an intrepid archeologist looking to liberate artifacts from becoming nazi propaganda so they would find their rightful place, accessible to all and celebrated by all at public museums. No, you’re watching a textbook example of how the white man illegally enters foreign lands to pillage and grave rob and steal and culturally appropriate artifacts that do not belong to the white man. So he may oppress foreign cultures under patriarchal thumb of western civilization. Yes, Indiana Jones was the bad guy.
Thought you were watching a movie about liberation and freedom versus fascism and tyranny? Think again! This was a disgusting display of nationalism in the worst way. Don’t let yourself be fooled with literal Nazis being the antagonist of the film. We all know the REAL Nazi was the white nationalist who openly boasted of patriotism and openly joked about pedophilia and sexism like a raging misogynist. His American ignorance in defending borders works to manipulate the french into doubling down on their sense of nationalism which no doubt contributed to the yellow vest movement we see going on in France till this day.
3. Pulp Fiction
There’s a special kick that comes from watching something this thrillingly alive. Pauline Kael calls it “getting drunk on movies.” Whatever you call it, Pulp Fiction is indisputably great.
the rolling stone
The title is perfect. Like those old pulp mags named “Thrilling Wonder Stories” and “Official Detective,” the movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days – where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into the dumpster of doom. The movie resurrects not only an aging genre but also a few careers.
So much praise from so many CIS WHITE MALES! White males love using catchy phrases like “ultra-hip” to apologize for what is unforgivable offenses paraded across the screen as if they are free of scrutiny. No more do such homophobic tropes and white supremacists themes deserve a platform of any kind! Where Tarantino inserts himself in the film itself just to be able to spout HATRED and violence by using the N-word several times, dog whistling to his alt-right base in the audience. The movie dehumanizes obviously oppressed homosexuals who have their sexuality driven underground in a world that doesn’t even acknowledge their humanity. They even throw in abilist ignorance by referring to a disabled person as a “gimp”. For how accurately this movie portrays the very real discrimination that occurs in the world this movie should’ve been called “pulp non-fiction”. This is what free speech looks like. The #1 most celebrated film by toxic fanboy misogynists and republicans everywhere. If you like this movie, castrate yourself.
4. Forest Gump
It sure is fun to celebrate the triumphs of a disadvantaged, handicapped, intellectually disabled individual. But at the same time we never stop to consider that by projecting our abililist criteria for success on the less fortunate we create a highly problematic situation where we impose unrealistic expectations onto someone who’s lived experience we ourselves have no basis for understanding.
The movie unapologetically conveys bullying and toxic masculinity without any critical challenging. Forest must overcome his disabilities to overcome his adversity in the scene where he is chased down by the three little misogynist white devils. Which sends such a poor message to those who wish they could overcome their disabilities but cannot. Instead of looking for preferential qualities in the disabled how about white people shut the fuck up.
If Forest’s mother had access to universal healthcare and full-day daycare she would’ve had opportunities to succeed. However this glass ceiling issue is not even mentioned in the film, let alone was the dead beat dad ever held to account for his abandonment of the family. The true story here was about how victimized the single mother was and how with a Trump government she never would get access to the supports she’d need to be a successful, independent woman. The movie might as well have been called “the handmaid’s tale”.
And to make matters worse, the lead role played by Tom Hanks was not even a disabled person himself. Which we all know is the equivalent to blackface of the disability world. The entire movie is a slap in the face to the already disadvantaged disability community. No coincidence that it takes place in the dirty south.
5. Lord of the Rings
Right out the gates. The Lord of the Rings was written by J. R. R. Tolkien. A CIS WHITE MALE — AND — UNAPOLOGETIC CHRISTIAN. Christianity. The religion responsible for COUNTLESS murders and rapes and oppression. Let’s not forget the crusades. The same religion that opposes women’s control over their bodies. The same religion that rapes children. The same religion who believe that an invisible sky man will take us to utopia as long as we aren’t homosexuals. So now that we have the context behind what’s about to unfold, let’s take a look at a white man’s story about the “lord” of the “rings”.
If we look at the dwarves, or racist jewish tropes, or the elves, hateful asian symbolism, they clearly are side characters to the superior white races among them and are used as comic relief through “gimli” and “legolas”. There’s no coincidence that those chosen to bear responsibility for the valuable ring is the CIS white male Elijah Woods. Oh but because he has some hair on his feet he’s no a honky ass cracker. Sure Tolkien. Through the trilogy we watch how other patriarchally empowered toxic white males come to save the day from their kingdoms surrounded by glamourized border walls in a disgusting display of nationalism. And since they are all white I think it’s safe to assume this is legitimate ethno-nationalist symbolism. Typical white supremacism.
There’s no coincidence that while black audience members watch a movie with no visible representation they also have to sit through every non-white character be portrayed as cannibalistic, evil, demon-like “orcs”. There’s no coincidence that while orcs of colour migrate through the lands, no surrounding nation will grant them asylum despite the fact they are all enslaved by a dark lord. We watch a film celebrate the persecution of literal slaves for the sake of justifying their racist borders. Because the white man must maintain control over the plantation, oh, sorry, I mean “middle-earth”. Disgusting. And if you enjoy this film you are complicit in this same populist propaganda.
Now let’s look at some holiday favourites that celebrate hate and the ways in which you are complicit in such hate.
6. Love Actually
Sometimes it takes nine intertwined stories to examine the complexities of the one thing the connects us all: the dominance hierarchy. Love actually perfectly displays the levels of privilege that’s granted to those who dominate the rest of society as they profit from patriarchy and racism and all the systematic benefits that come from being white. Even the one black character that they manage to squeak in gets cuckolded by Rick Grimes, CIS white male. The movie openly displays female suppression in the worst way as Hugh Grant’s character who plays the Prime Minister preys on a lower status staffer who embodies the most stereotypical female gender roles of serving her master. This film could have began the #metoo moment.
Full of celebrated mansplaining, this film hands out women to men as though they are currency. In this film men define these women and the film represents female characters more as livestock than human beings. The scenes around the sex actors being the most aggregious. This obviously sends a message to girls everywhere that they are nothing more than sexual objects to the men who own their bodies and that this is something that women should actually desire. As if they are defined by their vaginas.
7. A Christmas Story
Frankly, I don’t even know why I’m bothering having to point out what’s problematic with this one. Their portrayal of immigrants is disgusting. It contains scenes of mysogonist, toxic masculinity and bullying and celebrates the well documented nature of violent white males. Celebrated in this movie as the typical “boys will be boys” narrative. While childrens blood can likely still be found in Sandyhook elementary school, this movie’s main character wants a gun more than anything for christmas. Without a doubt this movie improves membership and sales among the NRA, this movie should be deplatformed from every network.
That’s not to even mention the fact that this repulsive man is somehow married to this attractive woman who’s apparently only meant to be a breeding baby factory as she stays at home and tends to the house like a slave. Cooking and cleaning for her master and his white male offspring. A brainless blonde stereotype who isn’t even trying to become a CEO, academic authority or political leader. Yet another movie designed for men’s pleasure.
8. It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown
Just because a CIS white male can take a pencil to a piece of paper doesn’t mean at all that the end result product has any innocence at all. Charlie Brown is no exception to this rule. Toxic, angry white men love to dispute that gender is not a social construct but they love constructing a fiction which visibly represents them in any way they prefer. And there’s no coincidence that in this holiday favourite we have blatant displays of sexism, racism and bigotry. It’s nothing more than white supremacy training to grow little cis white terrorists.
First of all, there’s 0 acknowledgement that the neighbourhood they all reside was a result of Jim Crow racist policies to keep other ethnicities away. The white kids await the alleged great pumpkin as symbolism to whites sense of entitlement to handouts and privileges. The movie dismisses strong female characters as just being bitchy as Linus and Charlie discuss Sally’s “scorn”. Aside from the open cultural appropriation displayed in the film while the kids trick or treat, the lore around this great pumpkin does nothing more than make conspiracy theories hip for young republicans to grow up more vulnerable to other similar fabrications. Next thing you know those kids are now adults spreading pizzagate all over facebook to slander Hillary Clinton.
9. Christmas Vacation
If you want to spend over an hour and a half watching mansplaining, toxic masculinity and deep seeded misogyny, you’ve come to the right place. A story about a middle class family training us to admire patriarchal family structure. With deeply offensive language unchallenged and unfiltered, the movie celebrates masculinity most toxic outbursts and that apparently passes for comedy. Not to mention their casual reference to animal abused used as slapstick when they electrocute the family cat and nobody even cares.
This film shows us the reality for middle class people who opt out of post secondary education. They glamourize wasteful holiday decorating without any critique over the carbon footprint or the impact such behaviour has on the environment. But as like any CIS white patriarchal family, they feel entitled to whatever they want. Between the scene of the kidnapping of the boss and the abuse of the upper class progressive neighbours, it’s easy to see the early seeds of populism were planted with movies like this.
For the last feature I will make this one special. Instead of a movie I will feature a TV show. But not just any TV show. One of the best TV shows to ever hit television.
10. Breaking Bad
Aside from the skinhead imagery and other direct references to white supremacy, breaking bad is one of the best examples of the culture of white supremacy that is widely accepted and celebrated among majority of white audiences. A common red herring term used to describe characters like Walter White is “anti-hero” which, last time I checked, meant villain. But we all know that when the character has white skin they can’t be a villain, just an anti-hero.
The rationalization of the immoral deeds and actions of Walter White is not so different from lack of convictions among bankers on wall street during the great recession. Because when a white person commits a crime there’s nuance that unfortunately black people don’t benefit from such nuance according to the disparities of incarcerated blacks. And there’s no coincidence that the justification for Walters misbehaviour is to privilege his white family for the future. A typical capitalist method of accumulation without any regard to the greater implications of the community.
Aside from the open nods to white supremacists, it is worthy to note the open hatred for Skylar’s character throughout the show. The loudest and most outspoken group being white men. Skyler represents to poke holes through the romanticizing of the gang culture and so naturally white men react to that with hatred and misogyny. This is a great example of a show which brings out the sexist and bigoted biases deeply seeded within white people, white men specifically, but all is forgiven because it’s all in the name of fiction, right? How about we stop celebrating violence and call out toxic masculinity.
That is my top 10 list to make you hate yourself. I may or may not have successfully steel manned the intersectional narrative surrounding these titles. My whole point here being that you can make an absolutely rational argument in rewriting history. But if you’re going to use intersectionality to deconstruct the things you don’t care about, you don’t get to also ignore the same logic when it comes knocking at the door of the things you hold precious. My whole point is that this is the function of deconstructionism. It is not designed to actually solve any problems. It’s actually just designed to create problems.
So that we may project our own personal biases against these things while using deconstruction tools to support an otherwise opinion based argument. If you don’t like a movie, don’t watch it. But when flirting with intersectionality all you do is tear down the very fabric of reality. While reading this you had 2 choices. Laugh or cry. I hope you had a laugh and from now on when you’re faced with a “problematic” situation you meet it head on with the same laughter.
Eventually this will take the wind out of the sales of this counter culture movement and one day the common sense revolution will correct all that has been corrupted. There may yet be an end to the culture war. The only answer to hate is love. You cannot transfer suffering you only create more of it. Love yourself, love your enemies, love life. And we will survive this.
It’s clear that boys are in crisis today. Aside from the vitriol one finds anywhere in the media around any masculine topic, figures around drop out rates, gang violence, domestic violence and fatherlessness are all indicators that the situation for boys is in a state of crisis. But it’s not as easy to pin down the ways in which girls or women are in their own state of crisis. Girls face more consequences in their major decision making in their transition into womanhood. And a career cannot be encouraged without, in part, discouraging motherhood, nor does it address the reality for most childless women.
Despite girls doing better in education, at every level, than boys and now taking on better jobs on average than boys and earning more up to their thirties when majority leave the workplace to start having children. But despite this success, rates of mental illness are skyrocketing among younger women. Mental Health America finds that women experience depression at twice the rate of men. At least men’s ailments can be laid at the feet of their failures. Women’s suffering may call into question what we classify as “success” and whether or not that always has to be tied to academic or financial gains.
So if everyone is in some state of crisis then do we really have any real crisis at all or is this just the facts of life? 100 years ago a crisis meant you were going to starve or freeze to death. But I feel we must view the issues of the day by it’s modern context. And so I feel there is an actual crisis but it simply impacts the genders in different ways. And I believe this is a crisis of masculinity. The feminine and the masculine play out their roles in the lives of both men and women and when either one is out of whack, it poses a real threat to both genders.
But that threat doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in the same ways between men and women. I think what the missing link both genders may have in common is the state of fatherlessness or the lack of adequate paternal role models. In the way that mothers have a special bond with their sons, girls require that same special bond with their fathers. However almost all boys benefit from a mother whereas the majority of girls do not benefit from a father. 1 in 4 girls grow up fatherless. That’s about 17.2 million fatherless girls. We are not having the conversation about the impact or ripple effects of such a dramatic yet silent statistic.
What 12 Rules for Life has to offer women
When I started writing this I came at it from the position of what Jordan Peterson has to offer women. But given how many lectures, debates and conversations he’s engaged with in his evangelical-style book tour I felt the necessity to distinguish between what Jordan Peterson has to offer women and what his book 12 rules for life has to offer women. But as I flipped through the chapters, reassessing the book to look for female specific messages or lessons, I felt myself at a loss. Not from the lack of female emphasis but from how equally valuable the message is to both boys and girls.
Rules #2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping – this might be a rule better emphasised for men since men are more likely to suffer in silence before going to the doctor, as opposed to women. Rule #3: Make friends with people who want the best for you – is a message of equal utility whether you’re a boy or girl. But rule #7: Do what is meaningful (not what is expedient) – this truly poses different challenges to women than the ones it poses to men. In terms of whether women desire both children and a career. Men have a bit more freedom to postpone having children till later in life which opens up more career opportunities to them.
What is meaningful at the individual level may not always match the popular consensus of what is “successful”. Equality of opportunity means battling stigma around both deviating from norms but also the pursuit of norms. Let the definition of success be described by the individual in what they find meaningful, not an academic course outline, the zeros on a paycheque or some stupid teen magazine. Pursuing what is meaningful will not only produce what is successful to you but, as Peterson always says, meaning will be what you use to offset your suffering. Snake oil salesmen sell us on the lie of happiness when the key to transcending your suffering is the pursuit of what is meaningful. That is what 12 rules for life has to offer women.
What it means to discover meaning
Communication around success is easily accessible as we all commonly presume the accumulation of commodity or asset but communicating what is meaningful is much less self evident. Because only you can define what is meaningful to you. But it’s probably something that involves some level of risk taking. You find meaning in the things that engage you. An instinctive phenomena you likely describe as your gut feeling or following your heart. Engagement that eclipse your concept of time. It likely feels like being at the right place at the right time.
Our subconscious cries out for this as we fill our days with activities of “empowerment”, “alignment”, “well-being”, “balance” or “harmony”. Whether we feel that from attending a concert, playing or watching a sport, blogging, doing yoga or other athletics. It’s the marriage between the metaphysical and the technical. It’s walking that fine line between order and chaos. It’s the process of growth and decay like that represented in the Taoist yin, shadow, and the yang, light. There is every reason to believe that in the moments one finds themselves fully engaged, they are actually fulfilling their destiny.
In 12 rules for life Jordan Peterson makes the case that it is far more desirable to delay one’s gratification towards a target or goal. Despite the fact it runs contrary to our animalistic nature which demands immediate satisfaction. Especially when we are in a state of deprivation. But doing what is expedient is how one becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol or binge eating. Expediency is the inability to make sacrifices for the future good. The greater the sacrifice, the deeper and more profound opportunities open up for the future.
The lesson to take away being the importance towards setting goals to be able to plan a direct path correlating between now and then. This will reveal to a person which sacrifices will be necessary towards attaining such goals. One of the ways society fails girls is that today’s political correct oriented views promote education and careers for the sake of simply obtaining an education and a career. With no real discussion around the direction that will take you nor the consequences of choosing the necessary sacrifices to follow that path. This egalitarian-centric tit for tat treats women more as statistics and quotas than the sovereign individuals they are.
We call it success when we allow people to go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to study post secondary courses that have no potential of translating into an actual job let alone a career. Not to mention the post secondary courses for things that are already arguably obsolete as the rollout of automation continues to eliminate occupations. Year by year post secondary enrollment requires more and more justification.
As long as we continue to consider post-secondary education in itself necessary and the only means to success then we will only continue to incentivize aimless career students. Also risk producing people who don’t really qualify for any job. Either impossible to find opportunities in their specialization or dismissed for being overqualified for positions potential employers fear they’d simply quit the first chance they get. And no one is addressing the role motherhood plays into any of this.
There are movements to reform the education system to truly filter out things that don’t apply to the real world. And perhaps it is time we completely rethink the way education serves students and how to address what areas get priority to better ready students for the ever changing modern world. Perhaps in the form of more partnership between educators and employers with a more school-to-work based curriculum.
As someone, myself, who only completed high school, I continue to learn every single day through the revolution independent content creators provide through podcasts, youtube videos, books, blogs, etc. Perhaps the education system can help facilitate continued education in a post-graduate reality. Assuming what we truly value is education itself. But the days of cookie cutter, career-based classroom environments has served to only stifle creativity and innovation in an economy that now thrives on entrepreneurs.
The Motherhood Gap
Entrepreneurship also happens to open opportunities for mothers who seek irregular hours and the ability to work from home. And with the vast majority of women dropping out of the workforce within their 30s to start a family, it’s pretty clear that what we are faced with is not a “gender pay” gap but a motherhood gap. And motherhood is not a “problem” to be solved by politicians. There’s no evidence to suggest that this isn’t exactly the right choice for women to make. And we need to embrace family and motherhood better. And the answer isn’t 24/7 daycare from ages 0-24.
Watch: Jordan Peterson Explain the Motherhood Gap
Could this result in less female CEOs? Fewer female top executives? Maybe, maybe not. But we need to ask ourselves how we define success as individuals, not as members of a group from which demand quotas. But if we could plan for motherhood and have more family oriented educational courses then I believe this would help women make better decisions in everything from their personal relationships to career paths they study. And if the system could find a way to enroll boys in these courses this could lead to better rates of fatherhood. Which is actually more important to girls than to boys as I earlier pointed out that everyone gets a mother but not all girls get a father.
Higher Rates of Mental Illness Among Young Women
Watch: Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff Discuss Mental Health
Back when I was in high school if you said something controversial or did something regretful it maybe circulated around the school and maybe one or two people would say something to you but that was it. Today your social interactions happen mostly online and god forbid you say or do something others don’t approve of. What you do now can be retweeted and shared with the entire world and there is no way to undo that. This has radically changed the landscape for bullying.
Cyber bullying alone can involve spreading rumours, display hurtful comments for the world to view in the form of disparaging one’s physical appearance. Also one’s religious or political views. Bullies subject victims to sexual harassment towards teens who are only beginning puberty, a time when one find themselves particularly vulnerable. And if any teen finds themselves with special needs it’s no longer a handful of idiots snickering, it’s open displays of belittling, totally exposed for viewing by anyone and everyone.
Girls are 41 percent more likely to be subjected to cyber bullying than boys at 28 percent. The type of cyber bullying girls engage in with other girls is far more sophisticated than the way boys engage with other boys. I know when I was a boy it was more about threats of violence or situations would lead to actual physical altercations. But no one wanted to get into a fight with a girl. Girls would move schools because of other girls. It was more like psychological warfare to see who could ruin the other person’s life. A former girl friend of my own turned on me and actively sought to turn all my friends against me. Luckily she was unsuccessful but it was a war that dominated 2 whole years of my high school experience. By the end of it I found myself having become a bully myself to battle against it. This was before facebook opened to the public.
Boys tend to interact more over gaming platforms so unless they’re streaming their content at least these interactions aren’t necessarily being displayed and recorded for the rest of the world to observe. At least not in the same ways as twitter, instagram or tumblr, which are more female dominated platforms. I can’t seem to find stats on exactly how many girls have attempted suicide but there is no doubting that we are seeing more Amanda Todds than ever before.
Watch: Amanda Todd’s last video upload
The Superficiality and Over Sexualization of Social Media
But aside from cyber bullying, girls are forced to observe the artificial reality that social media provides. You need only browse the app store to see how marketing is catering towards women’s insecurities to keep them insecure and to keep them paying money to cover up superficial imperfections. The only thing boys give a shit about is whether or not they have man boobs or if their dicks are too small. A pimple for a woman is worthy of a panic attack.
Only seconds of looking at these apps and you can see exactly what’s in conflict with social media’s perception of beauty. It’s not much different from a casting couch porn audition and it’s targeting girls at all age groups. Instead of idolizing figures marketing campaigns put before us, like Kim Kardashian, perhaps the best role model for girls to develop their sense of beauty and value is through the context of their fathers. The depth of that relationship may provide the security and confidence necessary to develop a media literacy to shield against the seduction of consumerism and marketing.
It’s normal to have ugly people shamed by beauty but this level of superficiality is fundamentally designed to shame every aspect of a woman’s physical appearance. This stuff isn’t even about attracting partners. Majority of guys find the majority of women attractive. And usually it’s not because of the makeup. Although the makeup doesn’t hurt. Although makeup at it’s core isn’t marketed to highlight what’s attractive about you. It’s strictly designed to highlight your flaws.
Even if such “flaws” are what make you unique and desirable in your own way, makeup is not marketed to promote positivity. There’s nothing in here about how to be a better friend or how to improve your life. Nor does it offer any insight about who you are or about your personality traits. Not that I’m bashing cosmetics but there is nothing here instructive or educational about cosmetic application or any educational basis for fashion in general. This is intellectual smut that’s training our girls to believe that the most important details about themselves are what’s skin deep.
And this isn’t even addressing magazines and other marketing that targets preteens through to young adults. Magazines like cosmopolitan can be found anywhere from department store checkouts to doctor office waiting rooms. Some of the issues are so shallowly sexual that even walmart has relocated where customers find them within stores. In this era of #peopleofwalmart, even walmart knows where to draw a line on social immorality. Most covers advertising the same thing. How to be desirable and how to have better orgasms. Meanwhile any man who reads these magazines can’t seem to figure out what men they’re actually talking about. But these magazines have been around forever. They would be less of an explanation to the sudden changes in girls mental health.
Feminism Hurts Women More than Men
Watch: BlazeTV on why not to be a feminist
When most people identify as “feminist” today I think they think of themselves as the old fashion, equality of opportunity type of feminist. Who wouldn’t be in favour of that in 2018? But the reality is despite there has never been more feminine movements than today, there are fewer and fewer positive role models for girls to look up to for guidance as they navigate an ever changing world. Virtually no one on any mainstream platform advocates for traditional values anymore. In fact traditional values are said to be patriarchal and oppressive now. And the only thing women hear about today are all the barriers holding them back, rather than all the opportunities available to encourage them. What’s worse is the fact that the bulk of this culture war is being waged by a noisy minority and it’s the consenting silence of the vast majority that give this malevolent minority authority to re-write history and provide an ideological context to how everything gets interpreted.
Feminism loves to attack men however they fail to consider all the women who have relationships with the very men they’re attacking. Which get demeaned by proxy. Not to mention that despite all the hashtags, marches and slogans purportedly in favour of women don’t prevent these same women from condemning other women like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Margaret Thatcher, Roseanne Barr, and every other woman who is counter narrative to the feminist agenda. Feminism isn’t about women, it’s about the “correct” women. Reports found women were actually happier than men in the 1960s whereas today women’s rates of happiness has dropped below that of men.
Feminism has, arguably successfully, replaced scientific data with hashtags. One need only look to James Damore and the Google debacle. Damore wrote a memo on how to entice more women into the stem field jobs. However because he used words like “typical versus a-typical”, “neurotic”, “agreeableness” and “risk averse” in relation to “job security” he was made out to be a bro-culture, rape apologizing hitler misogynist.
It leaked to mainstream news outlets who mischaracterized Damore as if he was boasting that men had bigger brains than women. Even a random science magazine I picked up from a local Rexall featured an article on differences in the brain and mentioned the memo directly in it’s article. Rather than refer to experts these outlets were purely emotionally reacting to how the individual words in the memo. Fox news was the only mainstream outlet who refused to smear Damore’s reputation. Yes, because the world is upside down, Fox news was the only non-fake news source.
Watch: CNBC play a blatant hit piece on Damore by reporting on the Google Memo from a position emotionally reacting to the words rather than referring to expert critique
Watch: TVO discuss disparities in female representation in 2012 (I bet if TVO played this today there would be protests outside the building to have Paikin fired)
Feminists resist science because they’re afraid of truth and the truth cannot be weaponized. Feminism needs an opponent for it to justify it’s own existence. So it has adopted a marxist oriented classism called intersectionality. Where through the lens of oppressor and oppressed you are now able to break humanity down into an infinite amount of identity groups (based on disabilities, ethnicities, religions, politics, etc) and since everyone is oppressed by something you now have justification for advocacy. And given that bureaucracy is defensive in nature then all you need to do to bring selective changes to the forefront is to protest in the form of filing formal complaints and grievances and form marches and online groups and get everyone in your group to echo in the form of retweets, hashtags, etc, criminal accusations towards institutions who fail to comply with your demands.
Next thing you know you have all the mainstream media outlets calling James Damore a sexist, misogynist. Not because they care whether or not he really is, but because they themselves don’t want the backlash of facing such an accusation. Some look at this mob justice and call it progress. However you don’t get to reject truth and walk away unscathed. To invalidate the big 5 personality traits as sexist means you’re dismissing all the qualities that make up everything that women are in their own way and all the insight that comes with unlocking the qualities to help you accomplish your life goals.
The ultimate irony is that due to things like higher aversion to risk resulting in more conscientious decision making, more agreeableness resulting in conflict avoidance/resolution and it’s things like this that make women more competent than men, on average. If you disagree with that then acquaint yourself with the Darwin awards. You’ll walk away a believer that, on average, men are the less competent sex. This is why 80% of all consumer baseddecision making is made by women because men know who’s the boss! Just because there is a disparity doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong.
Tribalism is a part of our biology. Therefore our tendencies towards tribalism is deeply built into us all. When you frame situations around victim groups and the privileged groups. Meaning people at the bottom are good and people at the top are bad. It may not be self evident what’s so harmful with this notion but what it’s essentially saying is that life itself is a 0 sum game. That’s what they’re really saying when referencing to systematic racism. This encourages a tribalistic response which only dehumanizes individuals and divides society at every level from workplace relationships, friendships down to families and spouses. There are no checks in place to view things scientifically when your team is calling you to action. Feminism creates this positive feedback loop of negativity and relies on manufactured outrage to bring out the worst in you. A recruiting tactic to rally members not so different than ISIS calls to action.
As much as feminism claims to speak for all women, it’s really more like educated women advocating for other educated women. Demanding government paid all day child care is only advocating for parental disengagement. As if motherhood pride looks like children calling their nannies “mommy”. Let’s not innovate ways to bring the economy to women, let’s demand conformity to sculpt the kind of women we want. You know, in the name of diversity and inclusion and equity.
But it not only refuses to hold a more meaningful conversation on a woman’s role as a mother, it refuses to hold meaningful conversations about the challenges women face when seeking to begin a family. An educated woman tends to have kids roughly in their 30s. 4/10 children are born from single mothers. The mothers of 2/3s of those kids are mothers under 30 years old. But the most significant conversation it’s avoiding is the fact that the majority of single mothers live in poverty.
According to singlemotherguide.com (US stats), about 12 million single parent families with children under the age of 18, more than 80% were headed by single mothers. 4/10 children are born to single women and 2/3s of those kids are born to mothers under the age of 30. Among 11,667 single parent families 81.4% are headed by single mothers. 35.6% were poor. 27.5% were jobless all year long with 22.4% receive unemployment benefits. 31.6% were food insecure with 13% on some variation of food assistance like a food bank. 50% never married. 29% are divorced where 21% are either separated or widowed. The median income for single mothers is $35,400 whereas the median income for married couples is $85,300.
Frankly it’s the Church and local communities and families who are the primary supports for these women. And also some of the primary targets of feminism in the name of fighting oppression. And in attacking these support systems, they launch a direct assault on the women who rely on them. As long as they propagandize emotions and replace data with hashtags as the evidence in their arguments, they will only feed toxic tribalism and hurt women in the process. If you want to identify as feminist, regardless your views, you have to accept that people like Hannah Gadsby is the spokesperson you are electing to speak on your behalf.
Watch: Hannah Gadsby explain what her definition of a “good man” is.
We all want equality of opportunities. But this equality oriented feminism is overshadowed by this new trend of intersectionality and identity politics. It’s also in bed with the post-modernists and neo-marxists. Feminism today operates more as a religion and mobs anyone who commits blasphemy. It truly highlights the dangers of smart people being seduced by dangerous ideologies. We are at a point now where feminists cook up so much false, propagandized data that you literally cannot trust any statistics they espouse.
Watch: Louise Mazanti PhD discuss moving on from #metoo
As the modern feminists say: the opposite of feminist is misogynist so you’re either with us or against us. And there could be no better example of this than how Cassie Jaye was treated by the mainstream media for creating her documentary, “the red pill“. Or that of what’s happening to Megan Murphy. She takes the controversial stance that trans women (male to female) are not biological women. Therefore she does not want to share women only spaces like women only gyms with trans women. Some of these women are victims of domestic violence or rape by men so it’s easy to understand why this would cause a conflict. And, to me, proves that “inclusiveness” does not mean everyone gets their own space, it means you are obligated to submit your space to everyone else. Why can’t we have women only gyms? The fact that they wage war against this proves there will be no rest until every single institution and corporation has submitted everything to the communist initiatives of these regressive progressives.
But the gender feminists have been condemning her and platforms like twitter is enabling their campaign of hate by responding to a report by banning murphy. They even have a name for women like Murphy. Murphy is deemed a “terf” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist). She has officially been deplatformed and dehumanized by this new allocation as radical. Feminism with all its many faces today is nothing more than an ouroboros as it is doomed to devour itself.
You either have empathy or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing who you have empathy for. You’re either empathetic or you’re not. Empathy is not a trait that prioritizes any kind of hierarchical order. So if you claim to advocate for the disenfranchised and yet end up condemning people who advocate for the disenfranchised then it’s clear to me your initiatives are not based in compassion as you claim. Your initiatives are more likely based in resentment. And this is where instead of attempting to correlate this to the many examples of genocide in the 20th century, I will simply tell you to read the Gulag Archipelago.
Watch: Jess Butcher, TEDxAstonU: Is Modern Feminism Starting to Undermine Itself?
What Jordan Peterson Has to Offer Women
Watch: Jordan Peterson lecture on motherhood and career
And so I come back to my original musing, what does Jordan Peterson has to offer women? Well his message, to me, is received like very fatherly advice. Many people have not had the pleasure of receiving fatherly advice to guide them through life. And so I believe it’s Peterson’s fatherly role modeling that is actually more meaningful to women than it is to men. Peterson often discusses how hierarchical ordering is built into our biology. He also frequently highlights the subtle differences that define the sexes through the big 5 personality traits.
Society sings songs and cracks jokes about women being gold diggers. However Peterson responds to this by asking why any woman would desire a pathetic man-child? Peterson points out something that should be common sense to us all but because of things like feminism it’s become controversial to openly discuss. Women select men that are of equal or greater status to themselves. Which only makes finding a suitable partner harder the more successful a woman becomes. Not that men are settlers, men just don’t put such emphasis on status. This is why the boss, secretary dynamic is such a common kink. The woman looks up to her boss while displaying to the boss an ability to fulfill his needs.
Petersons self authoring program allows you to learn about where you land within the big 5 personality traits. Peterson, in this context, often discusses how to overcome self-defeating behaviours. And identifying other bad habits holding you back. There is no greater advantage in setting goals then truly understanding who you are. This information helps you better understand yourself. What’s powerful about this for people and for women in particular, is that Peterson does a good job at communicating with a paternal flare the value in each one of these traits. He’s battling the stigma attached to the things that make the sexes similar but also the things that separate us.
Watch: Dr. Oz hosts Jordan Peterson in sharing quiz to help you accomplish your goals
Most women would take offense to being called neurotic. Mainly because it’s often used as an insult. But Peterson highlights that we rely on people in society who are sensitive to risk to keep dangerous new changes in check, however necessary the changes may be. Peterson’s message is a case for the sovereignty of the individual. Speak for yourself and only yourself, do not let any group dictate how you ought to live or try to speak for you. We all have strengths and weaknesses and there’s a reason why we tend to admire those who overcome their weaknesses. We’re not celebrating the weakness itself, we are rather admiring one’s triumph over it. Tragedy is the fact of life and there is nothing more real than pain.
Men and Women, regardless what they believe, are in this struggle together. And we need to step up and address exactly how we are getting masculinity wrong. And perhaps Jordan Peterson is providing us with a new cultural conversation to figure out what exactly we’ve all gotten so wrong. And perhaps through that discussion will emerge a new found respect for both sexes. And perhaps we can end this feuding with a warm embrace and renewed appreciation for each other.
My grandma made me a better man. So I believe grandpas, fathers, brothers and sons can also empower girls and women. We are at our best when we love each other. Let them embrace that masculinity in a way that celebrates their femininity. The key to better lives is through healthier relationships. And let boys and girls understand their whole selves and to take pride in the makeup of their character whether those traits be feminine or masculine. Let neither trait be discouraged if that daughter or that son finds meaning through it. Let them use what is meaningful to offset their suffering and let us all find peace in a balanced, aligned, harmonized relationship to both the light and the shadow. Let us love one another and work things out together so we can move forward together. It’s through our union together that will solve both crisis among boys and girls.